Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats great Green
Speaker 1: Leap Forward is laid out today and wow, is it
Speaker 1: a dumpster fire of toxic waste COO two fumes and
Speaker 1: all kinds of pollutants. It is a mess. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about why the left seems to think that social justice, socialism,
Speaker 1: and the environment have to go together. Also updates on
Speaker 1: the mess in Virginia with the Democrat Party, and so
Speaker 1: much more coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American. Again. The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. Analyston No. One reason that people who
Speaker 1: are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate
Speaker 1: change is that it sounds to them like it requires
Speaker 1: massive government intervention, which they just don't like. Are you
Speaker 1: prepared to put on the table that, yes, actually they're
Speaker 1: right what this requires as massive government intervention? Does it does? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I have no problem saying that. Why because we have
Speaker 1: tried their approach for forty years. For forty years, we
Speaker 1: tried to let the private sector take care of it.
Speaker 1: They said, we got this. We can do this. The
Speaker 1: forces of the market are going to force us to innovate.
Speaker 1: Government is not just for cleaning up other people's mess,
Speaker 1: but it's also for building solutions in places where the
Speaker 1: private sector will not Welcome to the buck Sexton show man,
Speaker 1: I love it when we actually get Democrats talking policy.
Speaker 1: This is going to be fun, folks. Strap in, you're
Speaker 1: in for a while ride. Alexandria Occasio Cortez unveiled her
Speaker 1: Green New Deal proposal today in a resolution and out
Speaker 1: the Congress, and it is one of the most bizarre, overreaching, deluded, insane, stupid,
Speaker 1: just wild documents I have ever read in my life.
Speaker 1: It is as though somebody went through the comments section
Speaker 1: of the Daily Coast, the Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and CNN
Speaker 1: and came up with some sort of a patchwork pieced
Speaker 1: together Frankenstein left wing overhaul of everything everything I'm talking
Speaker 1: all the way down to air travel and car a car. Gosh,
Speaker 1: cow farts. I can't even get I can't even get
Speaker 1: the words out. It's so wild. You gotta read this thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a little it's it's fourteen pages long.
Speaker 1: It won't take it won't take you much time you
Speaker 1: read this. This Green New Deal, which you've been hearing
Speaker 1: about for a while, is full of some of the dumbest,
Speaker 1: the dumbest stuff I've ever read that's supposedly going to
Speaker 1: be policy. I mean, there is something for everybody to
Speaker 1: make fun of it. Here they want, Here we go.
Speaker 1: I'll give you some of this from the text of
Speaker 1: it itself. To promote justice. Remember this is supposed to
Speaker 1: be about the environment. To promote justice and equity by
Speaker 1: stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities,
Speaker 1: communities of color, migrant communities, de industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities,
Speaker 1: the poor, low and co workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused,
Speaker 1: people with disabilities, and youth and youth, and it just
Speaker 1: goes on and on and on. Repairing an upgraded infrastructure
Speaker 1: in the United States by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,
Speaker 1: guaranteeing universal access to clean water, reducing the risks posed
Speaker 1: by flooding and other climate change impacts, Ensuring any infrastructure
Speaker 1: bill considered by Congress addresses climate change, which just means
Speaker 1: that there'll never be an infrastructure bill that's going to
Speaker 1: get through anything meeting one hundred percent of the power
Speaker 1: demand in the United States through clean, renewable and zero
Speaker 1: emission energy sources. I there's so much here. It's a
Speaker 1: magnificent monument to left wing idiocy. This is the Eiffel
Speaker 1: Power of stupid progressive This is the Mount Rushmore of
Speaker 1: liberal lunacy. Wow. I had some fun reading through this today.
Speaker 1: None of it makes any sense. There's stuff in there
Speaker 1: about and by the way we have it deserves to
Speaker 1: be ridiculed. But then it also deserves to be taken
Speaker 1: seriously because about twenty percent of the country is on
Speaker 1: board for this stuff, maybe more like twenty five or
Speaker 1: thirty percent, which is appalling, but that's reality. The liberal
Speaker 1: left buys into all of this, even if they know
Speaker 1: the science doesn't make sense, even if they know that economically,
Speaker 1: this would be our version of Mao's Great Leap Forward,
Speaker 1: which was central planning taken to the max, seemed like
Speaker 1: a good idea to the people in charge, led to
Speaker 1: mass starvation, perhaps as many as sixty million dead, and
Speaker 1: that was in the twenty middle of the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: This would destroy our economy, I mean just destroyed. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean that in oh, it would it would
Speaker 1: reduce GDP by a point or two, which would be
Speaker 1: really bad. But oh no, no, no, no, if we
Speaker 1: did this stuff that they're saying we should do in here,
Speaker 1: we would be a much poorer country, with much less
Speaker 1: with much less wealth to go around for anyone. I
Speaker 1: was somewhat flabbergasted reading through this thing today. I was
Speaker 1: trying to find a way to not kind of laugh
Speaker 1: but also have a little bit of unease at this
Speaker 1: is the this is the leading light of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party right now putting this forward. It addresses the need
Speaker 1: to eliminate cow farts. It says that we should have
Speaker 1: high speed rail to replace airplane travel. Oh so, as
Speaker 1: Mazie Harrono, arguably the dumbest woman in Congress. But I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think there's some competition. Mazie Harono from
Speaker 1: Hawaii says, what about Hawaii. It's gonna have to be
Speaker 1: quite an infrastructure project to get high speed rail to
Speaker 1: Hawaii from the mainland. Now, you could say, buck well,
Speaker 1: they don't think they're really going to eliminate this, or
Speaker 1: they're not going to get to one hundred percent. These
Speaker 1: are targets, These are goals. Well, then why are you
Speaker 1: releasing this as a policy statement. No one is forcing
Speaker 1: the social justice green left to tie all this stuff
Speaker 1: together and to just make this proclamation that is untethered
Speaker 1: from reality. Untethered from reality. I mean, it's quite a read.
Speaker 1: It is quite a read. Indeed, Um, I want here
Speaker 1: here's some some more of what she had to say
Speaker 1: about this. That of course it's massive government intervention. This
Speaker 1: is why the left loves this. The environment all of
Speaker 1: a sudden turns into an excuse for them to control
Speaker 1: everything about your life, all of your economic decisions, everything
Speaker 1: that's going on with you. And if you're opposed to
Speaker 1: what you're a bad person who wants kids to drink
Speaker 1: toxic waste sludge and people to die from, you know,
Speaker 1: inhaling chemicals. You see, one of the one of the
Speaker 1: tricks that they pull with this is by pretending they
Speaker 1: create a massive straw man in this argument. Nobody, nobody
Speaker 1: wants to live in a country or live in a
Speaker 1: world where you can't breathe the air, you can't drink
Speaker 1: any water, there's no good you know, there's no food
Speaker 1: to eat, or I mean, this is just this is
Speaker 1: some fake argument that they offer up that everybody that
Speaker 1: thinks that their ideas are crazy, and they are crazy,
Speaker 1: and this is this is I disagree with them. This
Speaker 1: is their nuts. This is the green left wing Democrats
Speaker 1: are bonkers. But they act like you and I for
Speaker 1: our mere skepticism over this. Don't walk clean water, don't
Speaker 1: want clean air. I'm all about. I think conservation is great.
Speaker 1: I think being good stewards of the environment is important.
Speaker 1: I think that anti pollution efforts are important. I don't
Speaker 1: think that CO two is a pollutant, however, and I
Speaker 1: don't think that dramatically changing the lifeblood of our economy,
Speaker 1: which is fossil fuel energy, that is just a fact,
Speaker 1: in order to try and mitigate the effects of point
Speaker 1: one percent of the atmospheres increase or decrease. I don't
Speaker 1: think that that is what any sane person should do.
Speaker 1: And I know that this will have massive cost, and
Speaker 1: this will have tremendous negative long term effect on growth
Speaker 1: but also on human freedom. This is what Ocazio Cortez
Speaker 1: doesn't get because she's she's an ignoramus. I mean she is,
Speaker 1: and I don't try to be mean, you know, I
Speaker 1: think that we'll talk later. I mean Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: a fraud, but she's not an imbecile. I think actually
Speaker 1: Ocasio Cortez is borderline borderline imbecile. I mean, not a
Speaker 1: smart person, a brilliant show person, a brilliant you know,
Speaker 1: political theater actor, but not somebody who's really thought through
Speaker 1: any of this stuff. Just doesn't know anything, just doesn't
Speaker 1: know anything. And the Democrats listen to her like she's
Speaker 1: the Queen Bee. She's the single most beloved Democrat by
Speaker 1: the media in the United States right now. She's been
Speaker 1: in Congress for all of a month, and she comes
Speaker 1: out with this plan that any adult who's trying to
Speaker 1: be reasonable and sane would would say is crazy. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a crazy But why would you do this?
Speaker 1: Why I put out such a crazy plan? And why
Speaker 1: is it about removing oppression from indigenous people's What does
Speaker 1: that have to do with climate change? There's so much here,
Speaker 1: I mean you, there's so much wrong that it really
Speaker 1: is hard to know where to start. But at a
Speaker 1: at a strategic level, at a thirty thousand foot view,
Speaker 1: you look down this you realize, oh, this is just
Speaker 1: this is just the pathway to socialism, and instead of
Speaker 1: the reds they're the Greens. I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: using the environment as a means of mobilizing people to
Speaker 1: the same ends that are not just socialists, but that
Speaker 1: communists did. This is really more, This is really more
Speaker 1: borderline commy attitude about the economy, because this is full
Speaker 1: state control. This is revolutionary central committee planning. This is
Speaker 1: scary stuff. And they tell us that we should be
Speaker 1: worried about Trump's tax returns. We have so much to
Speaker 1: work with here. And I would just note that, you know,
Speaker 1: Democrats are largely lining up behind this. They are saying
Speaker 1: that this is there's some good ideas in this, and
Speaker 1: they're going to be very prickly about conservatives like me
Speaker 1: saying that this is this is an indication of the
Speaker 1: lack of intellectual seriousness that left wing policy has devolved into,
Speaker 1: but also the incredibly grandiose status ambitions of a left
Speaker 1: to just control everything in your life, to just be
Speaker 1: in charge of everything, to use the environment as the
Speaker 1: catch all and the cure all, to take care, to
Speaker 1: take care of everything by taking all power into their hands.
Speaker 1: So it's hilarious terrifying at the same time. And we
Speaker 1: will spend more of our time this hour on some
Speaker 1: of the details here, and what's some other Democrats and
Speaker 1: other prominent voices are saying about this eight four four
Speaker 1: five eight four four nine hundred buck. If you want
Speaker 1: to chat about the Green New Deal, take a couple
Speaker 1: of calls this hour and we have more on this
Speaker 1: and we'll be right back. So you're saying, borrow the money,
Speaker 1: make the investment, the economy will grow, we'll pay off
Speaker 1: the debt. Absolutely because we're creating jobs. Although I do
Speaker 1: have to say you mentioned the Republican tax cut. They
Speaker 1: said the same thing about the tax cut. Let's do
Speaker 1: this tax cut. The economy will grow, it's going to
Speaker 1: be great, it's going to pay for itself. Hasn't turned
Speaker 1: out to be true at all. Absolutely, And I think
Speaker 1: that that is an important distinction to make because when
Speaker 1: they were advancing that cause, they had no evidence to
Speaker 1: say that these things were going to happen. But we
Speaker 1: actually do have the evidence. Forever one dollar invested in infrastructure,
Speaker 1: we get six dollars back. That's one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: things I've ever heard. Where does she even get we
Speaker 1: get six dollars back for every dollary? Is she not
Speaker 1: familiar with some of the public works projects across this
Speaker 1: country that have cost billions of dollars still aren't even finished.
Speaker 1: And does she not know what it was like to
Speaker 1: try to even get the Second Avenue subway built in
Speaker 1: New York City, the big dig in Boston. You look
Speaker 1: at this stuff, and any normal rational person comes away saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of boondoggles and a lot of wasted money,
Speaker 1: and every one dollar we spend on infrastructure, well, then
Speaker 1: we could just become rich by spending, you know, trillions
Speaker 1: and trillions of dollars on infrastructure projects. But this is
Speaker 1: kind of the Obama school of economics. We'll just we'll
Speaker 1: make people, We'll make the country rich by paying people
Speaker 1: to do jobs that we don't really need anyone to do,
Speaker 1: but the government will do it. We'll take money from
Speaker 1: the taxpayer. So there you go. It doesn't really work
Speaker 1: that way. Kim Strassol on this whole Green New Deal
Speaker 1: thing has a pretty great thread that I wanted to
Speaker 1: share with you before we get in some more of
Speaker 1: this and then also the immigration debate coming up. Here's
Speaker 1: what our friend Kim Strasso writes from the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: By the end of the Green New Deal resolution and
Speaker 1: accompanying fact sheet. I was laughing so hard I nearly cried.
Speaker 1: If a bunch of goopiers plotted to forge a fake
Speaker 1: Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could
Speaker 1: not have done a better job. It is beautiful. Take
Speaker 1: a look at Ron Bailey to see the sheer numbers
Speaker 1: of turbines, solar panels, and facilities necessary just for the
Speaker 1: renewable electricity bit. You need five hundred kilometers five hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: sorry square kilometers, bigger than California. Also note that government
Speaker 1: will pay for these, not the private sector. Also, AOC
Speaker 1: would put charging stations everywhere, Upgrade or tear down every
Speaker 1: building in the country, homes and businesses, install high speed
Speaker 1: rail across every state, Upgrade all of our infrastructure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. She actually wants to replace every building in
Speaker 1: the country with a more green friendly structure. Think about that, everyone,
Speaker 1: tear down every building in the country and replace it
Speaker 1: with an environmentally friendly structure. This is nuts. Somehow, government
Speaker 1: run healthcare, family, sustainable wages, paid leave, and affordable housing
Speaker 1: are also required for a clean economy. I would love
Speaker 1: to understand this logic and imagine what wages will need
Speaker 1: to need to be paid for billion dollars per kilowatt electricity.
Speaker 1: Key part, though, is in fact the sheet that explains
Speaker 1: why the resolution is not immediately banning fossil fuels or
Speaker 1: demanding zero emissions across the economy because quote, we aren't
Speaker 1: sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of
Speaker 1: farting cows and airplanes that fast. That's right, they use
Speaker 1: the word fully, and farting planes run on fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: No fossil fuel, no visits to granny cows produce methane.
Speaker 1: Why alarmists want to get rid of livestock? She can't
Speaker 1: do it fully in ten years. But AOC is coming
Speaker 1: after your air miles and your bacon. This is honesty
Speaker 1: about how democrats would micromanage your private life and how
Speaker 1: to pay for mass trillions in costs. Don't worry, Frederal
Speaker 1: Reserve will just extend credit, and new public banks can
Speaker 1: be created to extend credit too, because you know, like
Speaker 1: money is just paper, and how hard can it be
Speaker 1: to make some more of the stuff? Right, Okay, back
Speaker 1: to laughing Kim Strassel there, Wall Street Journal. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Kim gets it right. It's it's amazing, it's
Speaker 1: amazing when you read this thing and it's it's funny.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like what the media had to do
Speaker 1: after the Elizabeth Warren DNA debacle. I am one one
Speaker 1: thousand and twenty fourth native American, so yeah, I'm native American,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren says, and the media was like, WHOA, she
Speaker 1: has provided DNA results, so let's take her word for it. No,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to make this proposal from AOC sounds serious.
Speaker 1: The problem with that is it is impossible. It is
Speaker 1: impossible to do more on this in just a moment. Guys, today,
Speaker 1: mark's a seven day countdown until Valentine's Now. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of you have already ordered your special sum
Speaker 1: on a gorgeous bouquet from my friends at one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com. But for the rest of you
Speaker 1: out there putting it off, take care of it today,
Speaker 1: because right now, when you order early, you'll get eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine, or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for only ten dollars more. That's right,
Speaker 1: eighteen red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgraded
Speaker 1: twenty four Red roses four ten dollars more. I've used
Speaker 1: one hundred flowers before for thank yous for sending things
Speaker 1: to Miss Molly for her birthday. They are the best.
Speaker 1: The flowers are absolutely gorgeous and it's so easy. Just
Speaker 1: call them. You'll see they're picked at their peak of
Speaker 1: freshness and they're shipped overnight. It's going to be beautiful.
Speaker 1: This is the way to do it. Get it done today. Okay.
Speaker 1: To order eighteen red roses for twenty nine nine or
Speaker 1: upgrade to twenty four red roses for only ten dollars more,
Speaker 1: go to one eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's one eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck. Hurry
Speaker 1: offer expires Friday. The five warmest years have been the
Speaker 1: last five years. And this is not from some conspiracy
Speaker 1: group or anything like this. This is from NASA and Noah.
Speaker 1: You know, these are government organizations cast with keeping track
Speaker 1: of this. I think if we all disappeared like this,
Speaker 1: the Earth would go back and just be fine, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever cyclits on, whatever, if it's warm, if it's cold,
Speaker 1: I think it just goes back to doing its thing.
Speaker 1: But we all live here. Yeah, human beings are the problem,
Speaker 1: you see, They always revert back to this at the route.
Speaker 1: There's a kind of hatred of humanity that is animating
Speaker 1: a lot of this climate change alarmism. We are the problem.
Speaker 1: The presence of human beings on this planet despoils it.
Speaker 1: You know, we're we're the issue here and we need
Speaker 1: to change radically because of all the bad stuff that
Speaker 1: we do. I take a different view, which is that
Speaker 1: the planet exists for us, that we are the only
Speaker 1: sentient beings on the planet, and the planet is here
Speaker 1: to support us, and we should use it for our advantage.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't mean that the river should be, you know,
Speaker 1: flowing with toxic waste, but it does mean that we
Speaker 1: should use the planet. It's here, It is here for us.
Speaker 1: But the Left is just just wacko on this stuff.
Speaker 1: They really are. You know, this idea that the five
Speaker 1: warmest years on record of the last five years and
Speaker 1: this is all over. I think a one point four
Speaker 1: degree warming last year as compared to the year before. Yeah,
Speaker 1: one point four degrees higher than the average in the
Speaker 1: twentieth century. They are they are raising the alarm about
Speaker 1: the end of humanity and the extinction of the human
Speaker 1: race because of a one point four degree change in
Speaker 1: average temperature compared to the last one hundred years. The
Speaker 1: Earth is a few billion years old, you know, however
Speaker 1: many billions it is. We only have temperature readings for
Speaker 1: the last hundred years. This would be like looking at
Speaker 1: a beach and looking at one grain of sand and saying, well,
Speaker 1: what I can tell you about every other grain of
Speaker 1: sand is that this one is this size, and so
Speaker 1: all the other ones have to be the same size. No,
Speaker 1: that's not true. You're looking at a very very very
Speaker 1: small data sample and drawing in nor misconclusions from it.
Speaker 1: I mean, just making vast oversimplifications of what you can
Speaker 1: learn from the data. But I would note that AOC
Speaker 1: is not the only one who finds this climate alarmism
Speaker 1: approach to be the way she wants to go. Pelosi
Speaker 1: also gets it on this blake Leby yesterday, As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: I pointed the Select Committee on Climate. I said, this
Speaker 1: Select Committee will have a leading role in taking testimony
Speaker 1: building current information on solutions to the climate crisis. There's
Speaker 1: all kinds of ideas coming for we welcome all of
Speaker 1: them as they highlight the importance of this existential threat
Speaker 1: to the planet. It's a national security issue when it
Speaker 1: comes to preventing climate driven instability, it's an economic and jobs, jobs,
Speaker 1: jobs issue of making good paying jobs, making America, keeping
Speaker 1: America pre eminent and green technologies in the world. And
Speaker 1: it is that in my view of moral responsibility, if
Speaker 1: you believe as to why that this planet is God's creation,
Speaker 1: and we have a moral responsibility because stewards of it
Speaker 1: just blather piled on top of claptrap, laid a top
Speaker 1: more blather. Wow, Pelosi, existential threat to the planet. I
Speaker 1: don't know how anybody really believes this, although I do
Speaker 1: think that you have a kind of unholy alliance here
Speaker 1: between the very cynical, power hungry left that realizes that
Speaker 1: once you buy into this constructs of climate as possibly
Speaker 1: going to end humanity, that this is an existential issue,
Speaker 1: that all human life is going to end unless you
Speaker 1: put them in power, they're willing to just go along
Speaker 1: with it. But you also do have a sizeable contingent
Speaker 1: of the Democrat usually democrat atheists left as well. They
Speaker 1: really bind us. Although I have seen more and more
Speaker 1: of these left wing Christian types who are coming forward
Speaker 1: saying that climate change is a climate change is a
Speaker 1: Christian issue, you know that, like like Jesus wants you
Speaker 1: to take a bicycle to work and not drive a car.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do hear the social justice Christian left
Speaker 1: say this stuff, and I get very frustrated the Pope.
Speaker 1: The Pope has said stuff about climate change, which what
Speaker 1: the heck is he doing? He's got bigger problems. I
Speaker 1: think he saw some of the news today, you know
Speaker 1: about more sex abuse and more terrible stuff going on
Speaker 1: in the Catholic Church. But that's a conversation for another time.
Speaker 1: Pelosi says this is an existential threat. I don't think
Speaker 1: she believes that at all, not one bit. But it
Speaker 1: plays well to her looney left wing base, and it
Speaker 1: also opens the door to allow Democrats to try to
Speaker 1: gained the moral high ground after a month where they've
Speaker 1: been pushing socialism, which always remember, is based on the
Speaker 1: state seizing your property under threat of force and giving
Speaker 1: it to other people and infanticide, which as much as
Speaker 1: people can try to tell me that that is not
Speaker 1: what they were supporting, that's not what Northham was supporting,
Speaker 1: That's not what Tran in Virginia was supporting. No, it
Speaker 1: was what they were We can we can listen, We
Speaker 1: can read, we can hear, we know that is what
Speaker 1: they were supporting. And it just shows you the deep
Speaker 1: moral abyss that the Democrat Democrat Party has not just
Speaker 1: fallen into, but has embraced. Now there's a kind of
Speaker 1: pride in their in humanity and in the sinfulness of
Speaker 1: many of their policies and much of their decision making
Speaker 1: that should be unsettling to to anybody paying attention. But
Speaker 1: I said we would take some calls. So Chris in
Speaker 1: a Virginia all came my friend, Yes, yes, you're on
Speaker 1: the radio. Okay. I was just gonna say, you're referring
Speaker 1: to everything as fossil fuels. UM, I think not necessarily
Speaker 1: to take the wind out of their sales or says,
Speaker 1: I prefer to call them hydrocarbons. UM. I work in
Speaker 1: the aviation industry and we're actually moving away from standard
Speaker 1: aircraft fuel to swift fuel, which is in the future.
Speaker 1: It's not here yet, but it's renewable, it's made from
Speaker 1: bio waste, etc. Um. Plus, you know the hydrates in
Speaker 1: the in the CO two that come up and blend
Speaker 1: below the first crust are also hydrocarbons. It's not necessarily
Speaker 1: fossil fuel. Um, okay, is that it? I just you know,
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to you know, they keep to say
Speaker 1: fossil fuel, fossil fuel, fossil fuel, and we only have
Speaker 1: a limited amount, but there is more. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: being generated, and it's being made naturally and man made.
Speaker 1: It's not like we're going to run out anytime soon.
Speaker 1: You know. It's I think they're pointing as the fossil
Speaker 1: fuel is kind of the straw man argument. All righty,
Speaker 1: thanks for calling in my friend. Yeah, fossil fuels are
Speaker 1: are a type of hydrocarbon, so yeah, hydrocarbon is a
Speaker 1: broader categorization. But this then brings me to any of
Speaker 1: you who are looking for a book to read, if
Speaker 1: you if you care about it, and it's it's a
Speaker 1: great it's a history, and it's a really well written book.
Speaker 1: But Daniel Jurgen's The Prize is a history of the
Speaker 1: oil industry, but a great book. I'm actually about to
Speaker 1: start reading a book on the history of salt, so
Speaker 1: I find these things to be very I read a
Speaker 1: book years ago, the history of chocolate. I like to
Speaker 1: learn about these things. But The Prize is a fantastic book.
Speaker 1: One thing you learn the history of hydrocarbons, which includes
Speaker 1: fossil fuels, is that we are not we are naturally
Speaker 1: decarbonizing in our fuel usage. So you look at what
Speaker 1: they would call, you know, dirtier, more CO two, but
Speaker 1: but heavier burning and less efficient fuel sources. Okay, wood burning.
Speaker 1: Then you go to and at one point it was
Speaker 1: whale oil was really they preferred fuel for lighting and
Speaker 1: for lamps and things. Obviously, killing a whale to get
Speaker 1: to its SAT is not a particularly efficient way to
Speaker 1: do things, and it's going to run out fast. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be very expensive. But then we moved on to coal,
Speaker 1: and then you had the Industrial Revolution largely powered by coal, right,
Speaker 1: you know, the Industrial Revolution brought to you by coal power.
Speaker 1: And then from coal we moved to oil and gasoline,
Speaker 1: and then from gasoline we have moved to increasingly toward
Speaker 1: natural gas. And our caller just brought up some of
Speaker 1: the new fuels that are based on renewable technology. I'm
Speaker 1: not opposed. This is another place where the argument kind
Speaker 1: of breaks down and the left doesn't deal with what's
Speaker 1: really happening. I am not opposed to solar energy. I'm
Speaker 1: not opposed to although as I like to say, the
Speaker 1: wind turbines, they are queising arts for migratory foul. You know,
Speaker 1: they just get chopped up in a little pieces. It's
Speaker 1: really bad. Actually, it kills a lot of birds. Those
Speaker 1: big wind turbines are killing birds all all over the place.
Speaker 1: So for people that are big stewards in the environment,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't necessarily want to shred all of
Speaker 1: our bald eagles with these stupid wind turbines. But those
Speaker 1: are especially when you get into solar and the grid
Speaker 1: and the storage technology for it. If those technologies were there,
Speaker 1: we would already be using it in much larger numbers.
Speaker 1: That Okay, Cortez is little green energy debacle, the the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal, which it goes so far beyond the
Speaker 1: environment and energy too. It's you know, and we want this,
Speaker 1: and we want that, and throw this other thing in
Speaker 1: and social justice. But that it doesn't it doesn't make
Speaker 1: mention of nuclear power, which is the cleanest and by
Speaker 1: far the most on an efficiency basis. Nuclear power really
Speaker 1: blows everything else away. But the left gets very scared
Speaker 1: about that. Oh there'll be you know, meltdowns and things,
Speaker 1: things will happen, and nuclear waste. It's it's pretty amazing
Speaker 1: that they don't deal with that, and in fact they
Speaker 1: move in Europe away from nuclear power has resulted in
Speaker 1: much higher energy costs and as you know, gasoline there
Speaker 1: is much more expensive than it is here. But these
Speaker 1: processes are naturally occurring through technology, and this is are
Speaker 1: we are d The world is decarbonizing our energy sources.
Speaker 1: That is happening, and it has been happening for over
Speaker 1: one hundred year year. So when people do these projections
Speaker 1: for what our fossil fuel use or sorry, hydrocarbon usage
Speaker 1: is going to be for the next fifty years, they
Speaker 1: don't know because in five years there'll be technologies that
Speaker 1: are more efficient than what we have now. The problem
Speaker 1: comes with the central planning aspect of this. Industries and
Speaker 1: different applications of the technologies that we have will adopt
Speaker 1: them when they make sense, they will adopt them when
Speaker 1: they are cost effective. That's going and the people that
Speaker 1: are doing the r and D, the research and development
Speaker 1: on this are moving as fast as they can based
Speaker 1: upon what the market will bear and what they can
Speaker 1: figure out in terms of the science. But it's going
Speaker 1: to happen. I mean, I do believe that by the
Speaker 1: next century we probably will have moved largely beyond hydrocarbons.
Speaker 1: But to try to make us move at five x
Speaker 1: or ten x the speed of that decarbon is a process.
Speaker 1: This is where the mal great leap forward lesson of
Speaker 1: history becomes so relevant. Look at China's success with its economy,
Speaker 1: massive rise in living standards for people, But that would
Speaker 1: have happened without deciding to depopulate the rural areas, move
Speaker 1: everybody into cities and have a famine where sixty million
Speaker 1: people died. You didn't need to suffer through that to
Speaker 1: get to this point of rapid industrialization. This was all
Speaker 1: pushed through central planning. Central planning has a storied legacy
Speaker 1: and history of massive and catastrophic failure, and that is
Speaker 1: one of the biggest lessons of history of the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: I don't think of Kasia Cortez even knows that, and
Speaker 1: I really mean that. I don't think if you asked
Speaker 1: her what are the great failures of central planning the
Speaker 1: twentieth century, would she even be able to come up with, Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, the Soviet Union or Communist China, or
Speaker 1: go down the list. Oh, it wasn't a failure of
Speaker 1: central planning. It was just a failure of the implementation
Speaker 1: of central planning. And thus the argument that we had
Speaker 1: thought perhaps we defeated in the early nineteen nineties is
Speaker 1: back in full force courtesy of a twenty eight year
Speaker 1: old former bartender from New York City. We will be
Speaker 1: right back. This is a story that just broke as
Speaker 1: we were on air here. It's it's a it's a doozy.
Speaker 1: So Jeff Bezos is the founder and CEO of Amazon,
Speaker 1: one of the three or four most valuable companies on
Speaker 1: planet Earth. And look, it's a company that I love.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest with you. I use it all
Speaker 1: the time. It's it makes life. It just makes life
Speaker 1: more convenient and more efficient, There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Bezos has a relationship with the woman that he is
Speaker 1: now is his girlfriend. He left his wife, and there
Speaker 1: have been these reports that mister Bezos had taken had
Speaker 1: sent racy text messages, including what we will call lower
Speaker 1: area of photography, and had shared this with his dead
Speaker 1: mistress now girlfriend. You know, this is increasingly a common thing.
Speaker 1: More and more people with their significant other loved one, wife, husband, whatever,
Speaker 1: will do this. A lot of you are like it's crazy.
Speaker 1: You should not, but it is a more common thing.
Speaker 1: And apparently the it's becoming more common thing, I should say.
Speaker 1: And the Washington Post, which Bezos owns, means that he's
Speaker 1: obviously disliked by a lot of folks because they think
Speaker 1: that he's going after them with the Post, which I
Speaker 1: would say he probably is at some level, but let's
Speaker 1: put that aside for a moment. Ami, which publishes the
Speaker 1: National Enquirer, sent a letter to Bezos essentially telling him
Speaker 1: to tell the Washington Post to change their coverage of
Speaker 1: something involving the National Enquirer. And there's some political angle
Speaker 1: to it, and they said, essentially, you tell your Washington
Speaker 1: Post to back off, or we're going to publish these
Speaker 1: these photos of mister Bezos's manhood, so to speak. And
Speaker 1: Bezos has published this on medium and has gone public
Speaker 1: with the exchange and is calling it blackmail and extortion.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, messing with Bezos, you know, once
Speaker 1: you start going after guys who not only own a
Speaker 1: major media outlet that they can hit you back with,
Speaker 1: but also have billions and billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 1: at your disposal, you know. Peter Teal showed us what
Speaker 1: can happen with Gawker, and I cheered Peter Teal burning
Speaker 1: Gawker to the ground. It was one of the most
Speaker 1: wonderful things anyone's done in the media industry in a
Speaker 1: long time, because Gawker was a disgusting, trashy you know,
Speaker 1: National Enquirer is I mean, I read that email reads
Speaker 1: like blackmail. I know a lot of you don't like Bezos,
Speaker 1: and that's on. I don't likes politics either, but it
Speaker 1: reads like blackmail to me, and he's gone public with it.
Speaker 1: This is gonna get very interesting and he's gonna he's
Speaker 1: gonna fight. So I do think, by the way, we're
Speaker 1: gonna see a lot more mister Bezos any day now
Speaker 1: than we had intended. Be prepared for that. Ladies, shield
Speaker 1: your eyes. But if you remember the show The Wire,
Speaker 1: you come at Jeff Bezos you best not miss And
Speaker 1: I think the National Inquirer may have missed on this one.
Speaker 1: We got a big hour or two coming up with
Speaker 1: immigration talk. Stay with me. It is the most delicious,
Speaker 1: most wonderful coffee you can get anywhere, and my friends,
Speaker 1: it's also the most patriotic, the most freedom loving and
Speaker 1: gets your day started the right way. My friends at
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee do it right. Oh the coffee is delicious,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna tell you it's got a real caffeine
Speaker 1: kick to it too. So if you're like me, they
Speaker 1: do have decaffe by the way. But if you're like
Speaker 1: and you want to get fired up and get your
Speaker 1: day going and get into the action whatever that means
Speaker 1: for you, you want to start your day with Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee, I recommend you join their coffee club. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm in. They send it to you every month.
Speaker 1: You get your coffee, get it ground, get a whole being,
Speaker 1: get a cake up, and you can wake up with
Speaker 1: America's coffee every day courtesy a Black Rifle. Visit Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off again one more time, Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot Com slash buck fifteen percent off. Folks, this should
Speaker 1: be your coffee, all of you, all across the country.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. To protect the dignity and worth of
Speaker 1: every person, my administration has taken historic action to combat
Speaker 1: human trafficking. Last year, I directed the State Department to
Speaker 1: cut off development aid to nations that do not demonstrate
Speaker 1: a commitment to ending human trafficking in their own countries.
Speaker 1: And we are fighting every day to stop the tragedy
Speaker 1: of human trafficking all along our southern border. Together we
Speaker 1: will end discourge of modern day slavery. Human trafficking is
Speaker 1: a terrible thing and a lot of people suffer as
Speaker 1: a result of it. Human trafficking in this country is
Speaker 1: up because at our southern border there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are being brought there who don't have
Speaker 1: the money to pay, and so they are sexually assaulted
Speaker 1: and exploited by the coyotes who are backed by the cartels,
Speaker 1: which means that there's not going to be any government
Speaker 1: or police reprisals against them that are likely to happen.
Speaker 1: People get sold into essentially slavery in this country to
Speaker 1: pay off their debt to the cartels. And remember, you know,
Speaker 1: cartels have a lot more ability to strike at people
Speaker 1: that are illegals who come into this country because if
Speaker 1: they if there are any family members left behind, the
Speaker 1: cartel knows that in Mexico or in Central America, they
Speaker 1: can get to them very easily. So it's not like
Speaker 1: somebody's safe and out of jeopardy once they get into America,
Speaker 1: because you know, this was always true. Also, I worked
Speaker 1: with a guy who spent his whole career when I
Speaker 1: was at the NYPD, he dealt with Russian organized crime,
Speaker 1: and he said, would you have to know about the
Speaker 1: Russian organized crime is that they just want to make
Speaker 1: money in this country. For the most part, they're willing
Speaker 1: to be brutal, but they're particularly willing to be brutal
Speaker 1: against Russians with family back home, back in the mother country.
Speaker 1: So you know, if you stand the way of the
Speaker 1: Russian organized crime community in you know, the New York area,
Speaker 1: and you're you're yourself Russian, you know they go after
Speaker 1: your family back in Russia. That's that the cartels can
Speaker 1: operate that way too, which changes which changes the calculation
Speaker 1: for a lot of people and gives the cartels much
Speaker 1: more power over individuals that are brought into the country illegally.
Speaker 1: But here's here's a story that you will not hear
Speaker 1: from many folks today because you know, we've we've essentially
Speaker 1: dismantled one of the open borders Democrat you know, left
Speaker 1: wing talking points that they love the most. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have effectively pulled apart the walls don't work line.
Speaker 1: We may not get a wall, but at least we
Speaker 1: don't have to listen to idiots for the rest of
Speaker 1: eternity chant who don't work well, don't work. As if
Speaker 1: that's not the dumbest thing I've ever ever heard. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is very It feels very similar to saying
Speaker 1: water isn't wet, water isn't wet. It's like, well, I
Speaker 1: think you're just wrong. Walls work and water is wet.
Speaker 1: But there's another talking point that you will often hear
Speaker 1: another talking point from the left on immigration that I
Speaker 1: think is one that has never You know, you don't
Speaker 1: have to get too deep into the data. I try
Speaker 1: to dive into the data a bit, but you don't
Speaker 1: have to do that. You actually can just think this
Speaker 1: through and you find yourself coming to the conclusion that
Speaker 1: this talking point is wrong. And the talking point is
Speaker 1: that even illegal aliens commit less crime than native born
Speaker 1: Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, so Hispanic, black, white, Asian,
Speaker 1: that illegal aliens commit less crimes. Now, any of you
Speaker 1: who have a familiarity with local crime stats scenarias where
Speaker 1: there's a lot of legal aliens. When you add in
Speaker 1: death caused by drunk driving, gang violence including MS thirteen
Speaker 1: gang violence, terrible sexual assaults including some very high profile
Speaker 1: sexual assaults, and very young girls by illegal aliens. I mean,
Speaker 1: this stuff happens. It happens, and happens. We see it
Speaker 1: across the country. The media tries very hard to and
Speaker 1: all do credit to and culture on this because she's
Speaker 1: really raised the alarm out it. The media always says,
Speaker 1: you know, North Carolina man attacks twelve year old girl.
Speaker 1: And then when you're reading the story, you know, the
Speaker 1: guy comes from Mexico or somewhere in Central America, Latin America,
Speaker 1: and he's an legal alien, but he's a North Carolina man.
Speaker 1: Is how they refer to him in the headline. And
Speaker 1: you have to dig and in some of the stories
Speaker 1: they won't even mention his illegal status. In fact, a
Speaker 1: lot of them they'll just skip over that as though
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. The idea that illegal aliens commit crime
Speaker 1: at a lower rate than native born Americans does not
Speaker 1: make sense. It does not make sense. You think about this.
Speaker 1: These are people that are coming here, they're already breaking
Speaker 1: the law. They're in desperate circumstances. They are as by
Speaker 1: they always say, they're pushed into the shadows. They can't
Speaker 1: operate openly in the normal economy, and they're going to
Speaker 1: be more law abiding than the rest of US. Now
Speaker 1: I could I could tell you that if you add
Speaker 1: in document fraud, marriage, fraud, lyne to federal authorities, and
Speaker 1: they commit a lot of crimes that they're just not
Speaker 1: prosecuted for because the immigration authorities don't have the bandwidth
Speaker 1: the prosecute them for it. But I've also always said
Speaker 1: that this doesn't strike me as as plausible that in
Speaker 1: a broader sense they are more law abiding than than
Speaker 1: average day to day Americans. And so there's this this
Speaker 1: organization fair fair us dot org. I want to read
Speaker 1: you this piece, and this was shared today by Jessica
Speaker 1: Vaughan who was at the Center for Immigration Studies, who
Speaker 1: all she does is dig into the data, as she
Speaker 1: knows the stuff really well, and this is just debunking
Speaker 1: looking at the data and debunking the claim. Let me
Speaker 1: read you a little bit from this piece. For decades,
Speaker 1: open borders proponents have parroted the narrative that illegal aliens
Speaker 1: commit less crime than native board citizens. However, this claim
Speaker 1: typically rests on studies that manipulate the data in order
Speaker 1: to support the fictitious illegal aliens equals less crime narrative.
Speaker 1: Why are the majority of studies of illegal alien criminality
Speaker 1: so flawed? First, illegal immigrant crime calculations conveniently and invariably
Speaker 1: steal a base by leaving out the millions of crimes
Speaker 1: committed by illegal immigrants related to procuring fraudulent social security numbers,
Speaker 1: driver's licenses, that's what I said, right, and improperly accessing
Speaker 1: public benefits. That error is then compounded when researchers intentionally
Speaker 1: elect to leave out broad classes of crime, for example
Speaker 1: drug offenses, as the Cato Institute frequently does. Secondly, most
Speaker 1: federal and state local government agencies do not collect data
Speaker 1: on the at which illegal aliens are convicted of crimes.
Speaker 1: This is due to political correctness, most likely, and a
Speaker 1: desire to keep the truth about the number of crimes
Speaker 1: committed by illegal aliens from coming to light. Unfortunately, almost
Speaker 1: every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure
Speaker 1: of illegal immigrant related crime more tenaciously than disclosure of
Speaker 1: nuclear launch codes. And then, finally, most researchers tend to
Speaker 1: ignore the few established sources that provide data on crime
Speaker 1: criminal acts by known illegal aliens. They point to all
Speaker 1: types of alleged and typically baseless flaws in this data,
Speaker 1: ranging from limited sample size to an inability to determine
Speaker 1: whether illegal aliens are being counted more than once. This
Speaker 1: is essentially just lots of lies and smears to undermine
Speaker 1: the data so to get an accurate accurate count of
Speaker 1: the data. Here this is how fair has fai R
Speaker 1: has researched this information. They analyzed incarceration data from the
Speaker 1: federal government State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, compared it to
Speaker 1: public records of state and local prisons. They look at
Speaker 1: state entities and the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement looking
Speaker 1: to obtain reimbursement for costs associated with incarcerating legal aliens,
Speaker 1: the rate at which a state seeks, etc. I mean,
Speaker 1: they get as deep into the existing data as they
Speaker 1: possibly can. And here is a summary of the findings
Speaker 1: of this all Right, in all of these reporting states
Speaker 1: along the southern border reporting interior states that are preferred
Speaker 1: destinations for unlawful immigrants, illegal aliens are incarceed incarcerated at
Speaker 1: a much higher rate than citizens and lawfully present aliens.
Speaker 1: The data indicates that illegal aliens are typically at least
Speaker 1: three times as likely to be incarcerated than citizens and
Speaker 1: lawfully present aliens. The program only includes illegal aliens who
Speaker 1: have at some point been convicted of a crime. The
Speaker 1: only reasonable conclusions that illegal aliens must commit crimes at
Speaker 1: a higher rate than citizens are lawfully present aliens. You
Speaker 1: know this is you know, they break down the numbers
Speaker 1: here for you, And I'm trying to do a quick
Speaker 1: overview of all of this, and I think it's fascinating
Speaker 1: because we already knew this, didn't we I mean, this
Speaker 1: isn't in any meaningful way surprising, is it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you knew that illegal aliens, just based on what you
Speaker 1: see going on all the time, commit crimes at a
Speaker 1: higher rate than native born Americans, who, of course they
Speaker 1: do by definition, they're willing to commit one crime, and
Speaker 1: then based on the other pressures and realities of their circumstances,
Speaker 1: it just seems much more likely. Is it? A desperate
Speaker 1: people that can't as easily compete in the economy would
Speaker 1: remember this. I'm taking the pro American point of view.
Speaker 1: It's the libs that are always saying illegal aliens are
Speaker 1: more law abiding than Black Americans, more law abiding than
Speaker 1: white Americans, more law abiding. They take the illegal aliens
Speaker 1: are better than you position, and then they want to
Speaker 1: lecture us for being the bad guys. By state. I
Speaker 1: thought this was really interesting. Me here you go. They
Speaker 1: broke it down California. Point they have percentage of citizens,
Speaker 1: lawful immigrants incarcerated point four percent, percentage of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: incarcerated one point five percent, which means that there's a
Speaker 1: two hundred and thirty one percent chance that illegal aliens
Speaker 1: are more likely to be incarcerted, So essentially over two
Speaker 1: times almost two and a half times in New Jersey,
Speaker 1: four hundred and forty percent more likely that illegal aliens
Speaker 1: are incarcerated than native born Americans or remember native born
Speaker 1: Americans or illegal immigrants in Arizona, three times as likely,
Speaker 1: in Washington, two and a half times as likely in
Speaker 1: New York seven percent, so almost two times as likely.
Speaker 1: You know, they don't keep information on this because they
Speaker 1: don't want you to know what a preposterous scam this
Speaker 1: whole thing is. The government can have all this data
Speaker 1: for you. Think about how easy it is now to
Speaker 1: collect and call, late and share and analyze data. How
Speaker 1: is it that the government doesn't have at its fingertips
Speaker 1: and they simply do not have it? An exact number
Speaker 1: of the illegal aliens in custody, an exact number of
Speaker 1: illegal alien crimes committed in this country felonies. Let's just
Speaker 1: limit it out to felonies, drug or otherwise. They don't
Speaker 1: have that data. You can call bu're a prison, they
Speaker 1: don't have it. You can call state prisons. They don't
Speaker 1: have it. Why not because they don't want to have it. Now,
Speaker 1: what does that tell you about what's really going going
Speaker 1: on here? It tells you that they're lying to you once,
Speaker 1: just like walls don't work. The talking point that illegal
Speaker 1: aliens commit crime at a lower rate than native born
Speaker 1: Americans or legal immigrants is a lie. It's an obvious lie,
Speaker 1: and the people who have been peddling it should be
Speaker 1: ashamed for saying it for so long. But we are
Speaker 1: now in the era of Trump in a position to
Speaker 1: finally look at this and get closer to the truth,
Speaker 1: finally break down all these lies, finally have a discussion
Speaker 1: about immigration that's based on the reality and not the
Speaker 1: mythology that's created by the left wing open borders Democrat media.
Speaker 1: We are days away until Valentines. Now. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of you have already ordered your special soon a
Speaker 1: gorgeous bouquet from my friends at one aheaded flowers dot com.
Speaker 1: But for the rest of you who are putting it off,
Speaker 1: take care of it today. Just get it done like
Speaker 1: I have. I'm not thinking about it right now. I
Speaker 1: just know Miss Molly's going to see beautiful roses. They're
Speaker 1: going to our office. Don't tell anyone beautiful roses showing
Speaker 1: up two dozen of them because one hundred flowers gets
Speaker 1: you the top quality roses and a great deal. So
Speaker 1: if you want the best flowers, you want to taken
Speaker 1: care of, and you want to pay the least amount
Speaker 1: of money you want to, go to one hundred flowers
Speaker 1: dot com right now. Okay to order eighteen red roses
Speaker 1: for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to twenty four
Speaker 1: red roses. That's what I did, only ten dollars more.
Speaker 1: Go to one eight hundred flowers dot com. Just go,
Speaker 1: click on the radio icon and enter code Buck. That's
Speaker 1: one eight hundred flowers dot com. Click that radio icon
Speaker 1: and your promo code Buck hurry offer expires Friday. You know,
Speaker 1: earlier this week we were here and we were hearing
Speaker 1: inside that capitalist state of the Union, and the President
Speaker 1: said something. He said and spoke of the idea that
Speaker 1: he likes quote un quote legal immigration. But that is
Speaker 1: a lie. The President does not like any form of immigration.
Speaker 1: And now he is acting asking for five billion dollars
Speaker 1: to continue to militarize and weaponize a force that has
Speaker 1: zero accountability. Not only will we not agree to fund that,
Speaker 1: but we're here to say at an agency like ICE,
Speaker 1: which repeatedly and systematically violates human rights, does not deserve
Speaker 1: a dime. She's an idiot, But she's scary, isn't she.
Speaker 1: That's what twenty seven, twenty eight year old ignoramus who
Speaker 1: is really the star of the Democrat Party right now.
Speaker 1: She is the closest thing they have to in Obama
Speaker 1: right now in terms of national attention, and she is
Speaker 1: thus star of the Democrat Party. Astonishing. These are people
Speaker 1: that always tell us, you know, Trump isn't ready lead.
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't have the intelligence and the good sense to
Speaker 1: run this country, and he's gonna oh oh, but but
Speaker 1: Democrats think that Ocazio Cortes should have the nuclear codes.
Speaker 1: This is these people are unseerious, fundamentally unserious people taking
Speaker 1: ridiculous positions. But it's also unsettling. It's a bit frightening,
Speaker 1: you know. Okazio Cortes saying here openly that Ice violates
Speaker 1: human rights and does not deserve a dime. That's just
Speaker 1: because she doesn't believe in what Ice does. She does
Speaker 1: not think that there should be interior enforcement. She doesn't
Speaker 1: think that there should be any processing for people that
Speaker 1: come into this country illegally, whether they're requesting asylum or not,
Speaker 1: to make sure that our laws are enforced. She is
Speaker 1: openly advocating lawlessness. And yes, she is in favor of
Speaker 1: open borders. Every Democrat should be asked the question is
Speaker 1: illegal immigration bad? Yes? Or it's yes or no? Question
Speaker 1: is illegal immigration bad? And if they just say yes,
Speaker 1: they say why. And they can't just say well, because
Speaker 1: the law, because no, they don't agree with the law,
Speaker 1: they don't agree with the enforcement of the law. They
Speaker 1: can't just get away with this circular well, I don't
Speaker 1: like it because the law says it's bad, but it's
Speaker 1: actually good, and we shouldn't enforce the law. That's the game.
Speaker 1: They play. It's disgusting though, that she's essentially spitting on
Speaker 1: immigrations and Customs enforcement officers here, people that I've talked
Speaker 1: to and I know and understand the stresses and strain
Speaker 1: that they're under. Says that they systematically violate human rights.
Speaker 1: How do they violate human rights? The family separation policy
Speaker 1: that occurred this past summer, which the media acted like,
Speaker 1: was the American equivalent of concentration camps. I saw what
Speaker 1: they do for these kids. You have border patrol and
Speaker 1: ice agents who are running around acting as delivery boys
Speaker 1: to get food and men us in and clothing and
Speaker 1: you know, and that's not even their job, but that's
Speaker 1: what they do for these illegals who are coming into
Speaker 1: the country. And they're not doing this so that they can,
Speaker 1: you know, start the next google. They want a better life,
Speaker 1: but for a lot of them, a better life is
Speaker 1: going to be government benefits. Have a kid here, then
Speaker 1: you're here forever you skip the immigration line. They are
Speaker 1: scamming us. They're scamming us, and Democrats pretend to agree
Speaker 1: that this is a problem, but they don't really think
Speaker 1: it is. And that's where this all falls apart. But
Speaker 1: I mean Okazio quartet is. Saying that Ice should not
Speaker 1: get a dime is a disgraceful thing to say, and
Speaker 1: every Democrat who's running for president should be forced to
Speaker 1: answer whether they agree with her on this and not
Speaker 1: get away with some well, you know, maybe maybe we
Speaker 1: shift Ice or no, no, no, she said, shouldn't get
Speaker 1: a dime. She said, defund immigrations and customs enforcement. That
Speaker 1: should be an absolutely unacceptable and radic position for any
Speaker 1: person who wants to hold higher office in this country,
Speaker 1: including being in Congress. But the left embraces this. They
Speaker 1: seem to think that we're not figuring out what the
Speaker 1: game is here. You know, if they don't want to
Speaker 1: enforce the laws and immigration, I don't want to pay
Speaker 1: taxes anymore. How about that? Oh what, I'm not a
Speaker 1: bad guy, doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't hurt any of you.
Speaker 1: If I don't pay my taxes. Nobody could stand in
Speaker 1: front of a court of law and say that Buck
Speaker 1: not paying his taxes would be some great detriment to
Speaker 1: the country. I don't make very much money, So how
Speaker 1: about that? That should be the new rule. If Democrats
Speaker 1: want to have open borders, you know, we should just
Speaker 1: say fine, if you want to if you want to
Speaker 1: open borders, just say that past those laws, and then
Speaker 1: Republicans should say, We're not going to pay income tax anymore.
Speaker 1: Let's see how this country. Let's see how long it floats.
Speaker 1: Virginians will resolve there there issues that they have there.
Speaker 1: It's sad because they have some very panted leaders there.
Speaker 1: But they have to have the confidence of the electorate
Speaker 1: and they have to have the confidence of the legislature
Speaker 1: that they have to work with. But I'll leave that
Speaker 1: up to them. I have enough to do here without
Speaker 1: getting involved in the affairs of Virginia. I think that
Speaker 1: the letter written by the woman reads as a credible account,
Speaker 1: and I think there should be an investigation to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of it and determine the facts. I
Speaker 1: will at least say that Harris there, Kamela Harris is
Speaker 1: maintaining some standard in this because any Democrat who says
Speaker 1: that there should not be an investigation, you know that
Speaker 1: there should not be an investigation of this doctor Tyson. Oh,
Speaker 1: and when do they say doctor? And when do they not?
Speaker 1: For those that are spending a fair amount of time
Speaker 1: reading the news this week, or you know, if you
Speaker 1: have the time if you care to, you really, you
Speaker 1: really learn a lot from this. You learn a lot
Speaker 1: from how it was always doctor Blasi for doctor Blasi
Speaker 1: forge he had a he has a PhD in psychology,
Speaker 1: which you know, okay, now we have somebody else a
Speaker 1: PhD as a professor, and I hear I hear a
Speaker 1: lot of Vanessa Tyson talk and not a lot of doctor.
Speaker 1: It's a subtle thing, but the media understands the power
Speaker 1: of words and the persuasive, persuasive effect of using certain words.
Speaker 1: Trust me when they omit, because I remember when they
Speaker 1: were always oh, doctor Blasi for it. But when they
Speaker 1: omit that title of doctor, they are doing so purposefully.
Speaker 1: They are doing so because they know that when people
Speaker 1: hear that, you know, they come away with certain there's
Speaker 1: certain kindations, right, It's it's a it's a credibility. This
Speaker 1: is It's sort of similar to when I used to
Speaker 1: go on CNN and have food thrown at me like
Speaker 1: a caged animal for the delight of progressive idiots. Uh.
Speaker 1: They would always introduce me as you know, Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: from Glenn Becks the Blaze. That was often a thing,
Speaker 1: and I would say, you know, do I introduce you
Speaker 1: is uh, you know, former male model Don Lemon from
Speaker 1: Ted Turner's CNN or former male model Anderson Cooper that
Speaker 1: we all have to pretend is is good at what
Speaker 1: exactly looking like a journalist and being on TV. Great.
Speaker 1: Uh No, the answers, they did not introduce them that way.
Speaker 1: They did introduce me usually as uh, former CIA analysts,
Speaker 1: two War Zone deployments, NYPD in Tellence Division, you know,
Speaker 1: nationally syndicated radio host, blah blah. You know that was
Speaker 1: never it was always from Glenn Becks to the Blaze
Speaker 1: or they even call me a right wing commentator. So
Speaker 1: you know, I just I just gotta tell you, man,
Speaker 1: you pay attention to these little things because it tells
Speaker 1: you a lot about the opposition that we are dealing with.
Speaker 1: And there's just other common sense things that bother me
Speaker 1: about About Kamala Harris, m she she apparently thinks that
Speaker 1: it's it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea to
Speaker 1: warn young women to protect themselves from the protect themselves
Speaker 1: in the sense that they will avoid excessive drinking, because
Speaker 1: in a lot of situations where there's a sexual assault,
Speaker 1: excessive drinking puts a woman in a position where she
Speaker 1: is less able to understand her surroundings in this situation
Speaker 1: to fight back effectively. But but she took this. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's this uh, this woman row I see, who's done
Speaker 1: some some writing on this. And there was this this
Speaker 1: earlier in the week, there was this uh hearing on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill and yeah, I'm sorry Trump judicial nominee Naomi Rao.
Speaker 1: She really went after her on this point because Rao
Speaker 1: has proposed the quote common sense idea of avoiding excessive drinking,
Speaker 1: and she also clearly says that if you do drink
Speaker 1: too much, you're not at fault if you're attacked. And
Speaker 1: she said she's merely trying to keep women from becoming
Speaker 1: victims of crime. This is exactly the advice that responsible
Speaker 1: parents and Pierce should give. I still think it's amazing.
Speaker 1: I mean, by the Harris said this is deeply troubling
Speaker 1: and that you shouldn't say this. I still think it's
Speaker 1: amazing that I went through all the campus sensitivity training
Speaker 1: and all this other stuff that I did, and never, once, never,
Speaker 1: once was I told when I was at college undergrad
Speaker 1: or when I was a resident counselor in college to
Speaker 1: tell women you know, be careful with drinking too much.
Speaker 1: It's something that can lead to bad situations. It hurts judgment,
Speaker 1: It hurts your ability to drive a car. It also
Speaker 1: hurts your your judgment. You know, you know, I'm most
Speaker 1: women that I know are very they're very able to determine.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about you know, young women, not not you know,
Speaker 1: young people in high school. Um, when the guy when
Speaker 1: a guy who's being creepy and has bad intention, but
Speaker 1: if you add six or seven shots a yeager meister
Speaker 1: into the equation, it can be cloudy judgment. You know. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm a big brother as well as a
Speaker 1: guy that you know tries to look out for women
Speaker 1: in general. And I gave my sister this advice before
Speaker 1: she went to school. And every woman that I know
Speaker 1: that I care about who's young and you know, not
Speaker 1: a married person that has kids of their own and
Speaker 1: everything I said. You know, you don't want to you know,
Speaker 1: you got to be careful with the drinking, especially in college.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris says that this is bad. This is like
Speaker 1: blaming the victim. You just you can't have real discussions
Speaker 1: with democrats. You can't have real discussions with them. I
Speaker 1: think we should be focusing on what's right now happening
Speaker 1: with the governor. I know you guys are going to
Speaker 1: try to focus on a lot of things right now,
Speaker 1: but right now, my focus is on Ken calling for
Speaker 1: the governor to step down. How we deal with survivors
Speaker 1: who come forward right now is unacceptable, and the way
Speaker 1: we deal with this, unfortunately allows for the continued darkness
Speaker 1: of this culture to exist. And your brilliance shining light
Speaker 1: under this, speaking your truth is nothing short of heroic.
Speaker 1: So that's Corey Booker presidential candidate, talking in the beginning
Speaker 1: about the very they are credible, entirely believable allegations against
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Governor Fairfax in Virginia versus the allegations against Christine
Speaker 1: blasi Ford that was the second part of that soundclip.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, he's like, come on, guys, we
Speaker 1: got we got more important stuff to focus on. There's
Speaker 1: there's other things that we need to talk about other
Speaker 1: than this. But with Christine Blasi Ford, it's an opportunity
Speaker 1: for him to say, this is a defining moment. This
Speaker 1: is a defining moment for how we treat victims of
Speaker 1: sexual assault. And so you know, what I want to
Speaker 1: point out here is, I mean, the double standard with
Speaker 1: all of this, with whether you have to resign if
Speaker 1: you're in blackfaced. Oh I'm sorry against Kavanaugh, not against Ford,
Speaker 1: against Kavanaugh, Thank you, producer, Mike. But you know, the
Speaker 1: double standards about black face, but also the lack of
Speaker 1: and this is where the real bias comes in from
Speaker 1: the media, from the democratic igned media, the lack of
Speaker 1: a focus on this. Look at how much more interest
Speaker 1: there was from national media outlets in the allegations against
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh from all three of those women, and the
Speaker 1: way that they position the stories against Kavanaugh and all
Speaker 1: the follow up analysis and context, all the things that
Speaker 1: they did versus Fairfax. When you have Kavanaugh saying this
Speaker 1: equi unequivocally did not happen. You know, I saw and
Speaker 1: the woman didn't know what year it was. I mean
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford, didn't know where it was, didn't know how
Speaker 1: she got home. I mean, her story was was just crap.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's she's alone, she's got problems, she's got
Speaker 1: to disconnect from reality. Year. There's just no way that
Speaker 1: any of this made any sense. But I remember what
Speaker 1: that fight was like, and I just have questions that
Speaker 1: if reporters were honest, if reporters were being serious about
Speaker 1: covering these issues with the same standard, using the same
Speaker 1: you know, most kind of rigorous, rigorous fact searching that
Speaker 1: they could possibly do, and pushing the questions, pushing the envelope.
Speaker 1: Here's what they would say. They would ask Lieutenant Governor Fairfax,
Speaker 1: why would she, as in Vanessa Tyson, why would she
Speaker 1: make this up? That question was asked. I was asked
Speaker 1: that question by people during the Kavanaugh why would she
Speaker 1: make this up? Why would she make this up? And
Speaker 1: then that that was always followed up with it's very
Speaker 1: rare for women to make up these allegations. It's very rare. Well,
Speaker 1: women do actually make up these allegations. We know of
Speaker 1: very prominent cases in recent years where it has happened,
Speaker 1: and especially when there is a political motivation involved. It
Speaker 1: is not surprising at all. And yet that that doesn't
Speaker 1: get put into the mix here. Why would she just
Speaker 1: make this up? Lieutenant Governor Fairfax? I have not heard
Speaker 1: anyone ask him that yet, you know, are you saying
Speaker 1: she's lying? No? One seems to ask him that. Why
Speaker 1: not He's allowed to deny? You know, what do you
Speaker 1: think of these allegations, he denies it. Are you saying
Speaker 1: she's lying? Though? That's what was asked of people, not
Speaker 1: just a Brett Kavanaugh, but the people supporting him. Are
Speaker 1: you saying she's lying? And with me with Kavanaugh, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: In fact, I am saying that she's lying. That was
Speaker 1: kind of a shock to them. And then here's another question.
Speaker 1: Doesn't she have a right to be believed? Doesn't the
Speaker 1: accuser of fair facts have a right to be believed?
Speaker 1: These are the rules that the Democrats set up? Another
Speaker 1: one ask governor, Lieutenant governor, fair facts? Shouldn't you step
Speaker 1: aside because of the cloud you are under? Shouldn't you
Speaker 1: just you know, make room for somebody else who's not
Speaker 1: going to have these kinds of problems? All right? I
Speaker 1: think all this is kind of unfair. I want to
Speaker 1: be clear about that. I don't think that these are
Speaker 1: questions that anytime there's an allegation should be asked of
Speaker 1: a politician. But these were the questions that were asked
Speaker 1: of Brett Kavanaugh, all those who were defending him. And
Speaker 1: I need to know why journalists aren't asking them now.
Speaker 1: I need to know what has changed here? What has changed?
Speaker 1: Here in this circumstance, we all know, we know what
Speaker 1: the answers are Democrats versus Republicans. We understand what the
Speaker 1: answers are. I'm merely saying we should force them to
Speaker 1: tell us. And there's one other part, and and this
Speaker 1: was I heard some progressives on some crap podcast and
Speaker 1: one of them, this guy said, you know, look at
Speaker 1: what happened to Kavanaugh, how he how he melted down
Speaker 1: when he was confronted with his with his privilege, which
Speaker 1: is just a bizarre construct here. Kavanaugh wasn't confronted with
Speaker 1: his privilege. He was confronted with fake rape accusations from
Speaker 1: crazy people who were trying to take him down because
Speaker 1: they thought they were on some left wing mission. That's
Speaker 1: what he was confronted with. He wasn't confronted with his privilege.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is a common thing you come
Speaker 1: across with with leftists, where you know, they like to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if you grow up with a nice family that's intact,
Speaker 1: and you make something of yourself, you know, you didn't
Speaker 1: build that. That's not really something that anyone should celebrate.
Speaker 1: That's not really yours in any meaningful way. You're not
Speaker 1: somebody that we really need to celebrate because you know,
Speaker 1: you didn't build that well. A lot of people went
Speaker 1: to school with Kavanaugh. They didn't become top students at
Speaker 1: Yale Law School, they didn't have decades of top tier
Speaker 1: legal careers. You know, a lot of people have nice,
Speaker 1: intact families, and you know, they end up just kind
Speaker 1: of doing whatever. It's not as easy as just you know,
Speaker 1: mom and dad stay married and you have a household
Speaker 1: where there's somebody earning a decent living, and everything you
Speaker 1: do you should thank the state for and feel guilty about.
Speaker 1: But that's what liberals, that's one of the ways that
Speaker 1: they try to undermine any sense of ameritocracy because they
Speaker 1: think there is no such thing as a meritocracy, which
Speaker 1: is central to the identity politics that they view as
Speaker 1: the foundation of our society. Now, and we'll talk more
Speaker 1: about that in the next hour. Actually, I want to
Speaker 1: get into some more of the identity politics corrosion that
Speaker 1: is occurring here. And then there's this other part two
Speaker 1: of the Lieutenant Governor Fairfax situation. It is this I
Speaker 1: also remember them, the Democrats and the media with this
Speaker 1: just this mendaciousness and just this vicious bald face lie
Speaker 1: that no sentient human being could believe was meant in
Speaker 1: good faith. That because Kavanaugh, when he was being called
Speaker 1: a sexual predator who ran gang rape parties in high school,
Speaker 1: all of it a lie because he was upset he
Speaker 1: had he didn't have the temperament. Do you remember this,
Speaker 1: He didn't have the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: So even after it looked like the stories were flimsy
Speaker 1: and they were falling apart and they were going after
Speaker 1: him for political reasons, and even after all of that,
Speaker 1: what they fell back on was, well, because he's angry
Speaker 1: that people are trying to destroy him in front of
Speaker 1: his wife, his children, and all of America, we can't
Speaker 1: we can't let him have this job anyway. These people
Speaker 1: are disgusting. They're the same people that are just going
Speaker 1: to move from the Special Council, which is winding down
Speaker 1: in the next few weeks, to the next set of investigations,
Speaker 1: you know, the Adams shift, just what a slimeball that
Speaker 1: guy is. But the next level of you know, Trump
Speaker 1: administration proctology examination that they're going to engage in under
Speaker 1: the rules of Russia collusion. I mean, this is it's
Speaker 1: appalling what they're doing. But these people have no principles.
Speaker 1: This is part one of the One of the things
Speaker 1: that we have to get over on our side of
Speaker 1: the the not just the political spectrum, but on the
Speaker 1: moral and ethical and ideological spectrum, is that the people
Speaker 1: that have embraced leftist, statist, socialist, redistributive identity politics and
Speaker 1: moral relativism, they don't play by the same rules that
Speaker 1: we do on anything. And we saw this with how
Speaker 1: they attack Cavanaugh, and now we're seeing with how they
Speaker 1: excused Lieutenant Governor Fairfax who was in a meeting and
Speaker 1: called his accuser a blank that starts with an F
Speaker 1: and a you know blank that starts with a B.
Speaker 1: Does that? You know? Where are the social justice warriors
Speaker 1: that two weeks ago we're snickering about how Kavanaugh was
Speaker 1: confronted with his privilege and that's why he got so angry?
Speaker 1: Was Fairfax confronted with his privilege? Is that what he
Speaker 1: got so angry by? There are other Democrats who knew
Speaker 1: about this. They all covered up for this guy. They
Speaker 1: all covered this up. They didn't want this to be
Speaker 1: adjudicated in the court of public opinion. They didn't want
Speaker 1: this to be adjudicated in court. I think either because
Speaker 1: there's no statute of limitations on rape in Virginia, and
Speaker 1: this was in two thousand and four, so now they
Speaker 1: knew that this was a huge liability. I do think
Speaker 1: before we switched gears here the next hour, I do think, however,
Speaker 1: the idea that maybe Northam or I keep forgetting the
Speaker 1: other the other guy, the state attorney general, I keep
Speaker 1: forgetting his name, but the other guy for Virginia. The
Speaker 1: idea that one of them might have leaked this information
Speaker 1: to take the heat off of them. I can see
Speaker 1: that actually these people are These people are brutal. He's
Speaker 1: Democrat politicians. They got no qualms about throwing anybody under
Speaker 1: the bus. Our three is coming up and it's going
Speaker 1: to be massive. Stay with me. AARP people are like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a seniors organization, right, you might know a bit
Speaker 1: about it. You might already be a member or someone
Speaker 1: you know is a member. But I'm here to tell
Speaker 1: you AARP is surprisingly liberal, supports a lot of left
Speaker 1: wing stuff, and that's not where your values are. So
Speaker 1: why not get all the benefits of a great seniors organization,
Speaker 1: but one that was founded by a veteran and is
Speaker 1: all about supporting values that you also care about. I
Speaker 1: recommend AMAK. AMAC has over one point five million Americans
Speaker 1: who have joined, and I'm telling you AMAC allows for
Speaker 1: good policy for America and good benefits in value for you,
Speaker 1: including discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance, you name it.
Speaker 1: Stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight. Become
Speaker 1: a member today. The benefits are great, but the cause
Speaker 1: is even greater. Tell your family and tell your friends
Speaker 1: join right now. At AMA dot us slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: better for America. This is what happens when identity politics
Speaker 1: becomes supreme. When you feel an obligation to define yourself
Speaker 1: by your heritage instead of your ideas, you reach for
Speaker 1: these things you decide I want to put on the
Speaker 1: form I'm American Indian. This is an issue where the
Speaker 1: Democrats have inverted Martin Luther King's dream. He said he
Speaker 1: wanted his four little children to be judged by the
Speaker 1: content of their character and not the color of their skin. Too.
Speaker 1: Any Democrats think the color of their skin, it does
Speaker 1: come first. It is what should be talked about. Your
Speaker 1: race your heritage, your background, your orientation. This all dominates
Speaker 1: democratic politics instead of your ideas. If I'm Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: I drop all of this and I just talk about
Speaker 1: my ideas and stop apologizing. You know, Elizabeth Warren has
Speaker 1: gone out and said, I believe to a tribe of
Speaker 1: the or it said to the Cherokee nation that she's sorry,
Speaker 1: and now she's going to the apology tour for this
Speaker 1: whole thing. You know, the problem for Warren other than
Speaker 1: the fact that she looks completely ridiculous in this whole process.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's somebody who I don't think that she
Speaker 1: can recover from the ridiculousness of what she's done here.
Speaker 1: But the problem of her is that it's also it's
Speaker 1: also a function of where the left is on this stuff.
Speaker 1: You know that they don't have answers for is identity malleable?
Speaker 1: You know, can you? Because if your gender identity is malleable,
Speaker 1: I need to know why your racial identity is not changeable?
Speaker 1: Why is this in that? Why is one in immutable
Speaker 1: characteristic but the other is up for up for discussion.
Speaker 1: I know there was this this transgender individual who got
Speaker 1: very upset recently. I think this was in Arizona. I
Speaker 1: just remember reading this story quickly a few days ago. Um,
Speaker 1: but got very upset because a store clerk called him
Speaker 1: him and and actually they you know, the idea was
Speaker 1: that he is supposed to be called her now and
Speaker 1: this has just gotten to the place where it's it's
Speaker 1: utterly bizarre, right, you know, you don't know how you're
Speaker 1: supposed to how you're supposed to interact with people anymore,
Speaker 1: because their change the rules constantly. I mean they're they're
Speaker 1: deciding that you're not allowed to be in a position
Speaker 1: where you could be confident in what you're saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is I was looking for the piece here. Transgender
Speaker 1: woman explodes on game stop employee after being misgendered. All
Speaker 1: this was back in December. Actually I just saw someone
Speaker 1: it getting linked here, but a very large man in
Speaker 1: woman's clothing was referred to as sir. And then this
Speaker 1: turned into a And this was at a game stop,
Speaker 1: which is a John John GameStop is where they sell
Speaker 1: video games, right, yes, yeah, it's a it's a video
Speaker 1: game place. And the person got so angry this, this
Speaker 1: transgender individual got so angry and claimed that this was
Speaker 1: a huge, you know, a huge slap in the face.
Speaker 1: Why is it that a transgender person can claim to
Speaker 1: be a different a different gender, but Elizabeth Warren can't
Speaker 1: claim to be a member of the Cherokee nature or
Speaker 1: whatever tribe. She said. Oh, she said today also that
Speaker 1: there might be more examples of this. I mean, she
Speaker 1: built her whole career on this racial fraud. It's it's
Speaker 1: amazing when you think about it, how successful she actually
Speaker 1: was in this whole process. It's pretty astonishing that she
Speaker 1: managed to be in a place where it took this
Speaker 1: much public scrutiny and this much attention on her for
Speaker 1: this stuff to come out. You know, nobody ever stopped
Speaker 1: to challenge whether this woman was a fair representative of this.
Speaker 1: I still remember I had a friend and she got
Speaker 1: a lot I think I've told you this before in
Speaker 1: the show. I had a friend who got in a
Speaker 1: lot of trouble because she claimed to be African American
Speaker 1: because she was born in Cairo, which is Africa, and
Speaker 1: then moved to America. But she was born in Cairo,
Speaker 1: which is on the continent of Africa, and she claimed
Speaker 1: for college application purposes to be African American, and they
Speaker 1: were very upset with her about that, and she took
Speaker 1: issue with it. Now I understand that they would say
Speaker 1: that it's meant to be for the for people that
Speaker 1: have suffered, you know, from institutional racism. And she as
Speaker 1: a light skinned I mean, he would not really know
Speaker 1: that she was even Arab, but as a light skinned person,
Speaker 1: maybe they claim it. That's that's not what this is
Speaker 1: intended for. But then what about students who come from
Speaker 1: entirely African countries and are welcomed into the university system
Speaker 1: because they are supposed they're part of this diversity push.
Speaker 1: Are they you know, are they African American? No, they're
Speaker 1: just African. So why is there an obligation to take
Speaker 1: those students ahead of other students just because it's really
Speaker 1: because of skin color? Is what you find out. And
Speaker 1: this stuff is incoherent. And I know, as I discussed
Speaker 1: this with you in the context of Elizabeth Warren, it
Speaker 1: sounds like we're rawn in circles and we're going around
Speaker 1: and around. But that's because that's what they do. This
Speaker 1: is the reality of identity politics as it is is
Speaker 1: manifesting itself in our day to day lives. You can't
Speaker 1: keep up with this stuff, you know, the next month
Speaker 1: I think we're going to get a ruling on the
Speaker 1: Asian Americans who apply to Harvard and how they are
Speaker 1: they are discriminated against. People can say whatever they want,
Speaker 1: you know, Asians need to have on average, I think
Speaker 1: it's almost two hundred points higher on the SAT than
Speaker 1: non Asian, non white piers, so essentially black, Hispanic and
Speaker 1: Native American piers, in order to get into Harvard. That's
Speaker 1: a big swing. I mean, the difference between getting a
Speaker 1: fourteen hundred in the SAT and a twelve hundred on
Speaker 1: the SAT by the percentages is vast. And yet here
Speaker 1: we are. What's the explanation for this? Oh, a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff about historical oppression. Why are Hispanic and Latino
Speaker 1: communities that they're oppressed? How and on what scale are
Speaker 1: they more oppressed than Asian Americans? How? And why there
Speaker 1: was institutional and legalize racism against Asians in this country
Speaker 1: after the building of the railroads. Some of you are
Speaker 1: probably familiar with that part of history. That was a
Speaker 1: real thing. There's been no call for reparations on that.
Speaker 1: And I'm just wondering, when they come forward with Asian
Speaker 1: privilege as a thing, why is that so hard to believe?
Speaker 1: Why is Asian privilege such a shocking term when the
Speaker 1: average Asian household has more in this country than the
Speaker 1: average white household does. Now, the only way to make
Speaker 1: sense of all this, or to try to deal with this,
Speaker 1: is to say that we're not going to divide society
Speaker 1: along these lines. We're not going to treat people differently
Speaker 1: based on their skin color or their ethnicity, their national origin,
Speaker 1: and that everyone is a person, and all people are
Speaker 1: equal in the eyes of the law and in the
Speaker 1: eyes of God, and we judge people as individuals. That's
Speaker 1: the only way. Everything else that they're doing is essentially
Speaker 1: an intrusion, an intrusion of the state into social and
Speaker 1: cultural processes, whether it's affirmative action or any of these
Speaker 1: diversity initiatives you see at the government level, at the
Speaker 1: private sector level, any of those intrusions are just going
Speaker 1: to invite more intrusions, and the constant jockeying for position
Speaker 1: and the constant bickering of these different groups that are
Speaker 1: represented by activists, and the whole identity politics industrial complex,
Speaker 1: which is a real thing. You know, it's a real
Speaker 1: thing on university campus, is a real thing in corporate America,
Speaker 1: a real thing in government hiring. This is not a
Speaker 1: long term recipe for a successful nation. The concepts of
Speaker 1: a shared shared language, a shared ideology, a shared history
Speaker 1: that does not take into account these different identity politics
Speaker 1: based groups as somehow the building blocks of society. This
Speaker 1: is the only way we're going to be able to
Speaker 1: move forward effectively. And so Elizabeth Warren Is it's more
Speaker 1: than just she's an embarrassment and she's a fraud, which
Speaker 1: those things are true. She's also really emblematic of how
Speaker 1: far this poison of identity politics has spread, where you
Speaker 1: have people who are recognizing it as a way to
Speaker 1: if they're dishonest enough and they're shameless enough, as a
Speaker 1: way to get ahead. And Democrats have to try to
Speaker 1: turn some kind of a blind eye to it. And
Speaker 1: they really don't have explanations for what the rules are.
Speaker 1: The rules are whatever feels convenient at the time, as
Speaker 1: we've been seeing with these Virginia politicians. The rules are
Speaker 1: what other Democrats say they are based on their need
Speaker 1: to hold on to power. But Elizabeth, Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: I think I think she's done running for president, whether
Speaker 1: she knows it or not. But she's also a troubling
Speaker 1: sign of where this country is headed if we don't
Speaker 1: get a handle on this whole identity politics debacle that
Speaker 1: continues to play out. Friends, when do you want to
Speaker 1: spot that burglar when he's casing your home or after
Speaker 1: he's already broken in? Well, you can ask John who's
Speaker 1: Blink camera alerted him to burglars trying to break in
Speaker 1: while he and his family were actually home, Or Shannon,
Speaker 1: who's Blink camera caught a thief stealing packages off or
Speaker 1: front porch. Happens to so many people, but both times
Speaker 1: Blink video clips were sent to police to help convict
Speaker 1: the crooks. Blink motion activated indoor and outdoor cameras are
Speaker 1: wire free, They set up in minutes and run on
Speaker 1: two double A batteries that last up to two years.
Speaker 1: And if you're traveling, blinks Live feed option lets you
Speaker 1: monitor your home and check it on pets from anywhere
Speaker 1: using the Blink smartphone app. No contracts, no subscriptions, totally affordable,
Speaker 1: and Blink works with Alexa. Blink camera systems make great
Speaker 1: gifts and they're brilliant way to monitor your package deliveries.
Speaker 1: Visit Blink protect dot com, slash buck again, b l
Speaker 1: I N k protect dot com slash buck once more,
Speaker 1: that's b l I n K blink protect dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. Blink is an Amazon company. What do you
Speaker 1: say to Democratic voters who watched you go over there,
Speaker 1: and and what do you say to military members who
Speaker 1: have been deployed repeatedly in Syria pushing back against US suck?
Speaker 1: People who have been deployed to Syria have been there
Speaker 1: focused on their mission, which has been to defeat ISIS.
Speaker 1: Our troops have not gone to Syria to wage yet
Speaker 1: another costly destructive regime change war. Journalists don't seem to
Speaker 1: understand this. And you know, I know we talked about
Speaker 1: this a little bit yesterday. I just want to follow
Speaker 1: up wanted They they don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: For the most part, with these overseas conflicts. They don't
Speaker 1: really understand the intricacy or the players. They certainly don't
Speaker 1: speak particularly intelligently about about Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: because to really know what's going on requires a great
Speaker 1: deal of reading and research and understanding. But I just
Speaker 1: know that, you know, they can't figure out where they
Speaker 1: are on these issues. It's fascinating to see this play
Speaker 1: out the Democrat aligned media isn't sure if they're supposed
Speaker 1: to cheer or boo when Trump talks about getting us
Speaker 1: out of these conflict zones, when Trump gets us out
Speaker 1: of these wars, I mean, these are wars. And there
Speaker 1: seems to be a very superficial at best understanding of
Speaker 1: just what it means, of what it means to have
Speaker 1: our troops holding these countries together or suppressing some of
Speaker 1: these continuing Islamist insurgencies. And you know, there's just no
Speaker 1: acceptance whatsoever of the reality on the ground, which is
Speaker 1: that the Assad regime is going to stay. There's also,
Speaker 1: I think very little acceptance of what's going to happen
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan as we draw down, which is that the Taliban.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're hearing me say this very openly, that
Speaker 1: the Taliban is going to take control of at least
Speaker 1: half of that country and there might be an unsteady
Speaker 1: power sharing agreement for a while, but eventually the Taliban
Speaker 1: and the remnants of the Northern Reliance, which is Tadjik,
Speaker 1: Uzbek and Hazara, but mostly Tadjik and Uzbek, they're going
Speaker 1: to go to war with the Taliban again. I mean,
Speaker 1: Afghanistan is going to go through another cycle of civil war.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of reasons, you know that we
Speaker 1: can get into as to why that is. The lack
Speaker 1: of the lack of both the infrastructure and the civic
Speaker 1: attachment to a centralized government in Afghanistan means that you're
Speaker 1: you're going to be facing this problem for a very
Speaker 1: long time. And I think that we should all be
Speaker 1: open and honest about what the trade offs are going
Speaker 1: to be. And this is this brings me back to
Speaker 1: a debate that started, what was it now a month
Speaker 1: or two ago, where I was saying, as a conservative, look,
Speaker 1: we've got to leave SyRI We've got to leave Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: We've got a military presence in Iraq. Iraq is an
Speaker 1: allied regime, and we do have I think a greater
Speaker 1: strategic interest in keeping Iraq from completely falling apart, at
Speaker 1: least in the near term. So I'm okay with the
Speaker 1: Iraq presence on a temporary basis. That said, I think
Speaker 1: the Iraqis are going to kick us out pretty soon.
Speaker 1: I think the Iraqis are going to say thanks, but
Speaker 1: we've got this. That doesn't mean we won't give them
Speaker 1: aid An assistance. But where is the left on all this.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're trying to just say that Trump
Speaker 1: is crazy. Trump is crazy, and I think that they
Speaker 1: should get a lot more criticism for the cynicism, the
Speaker 1: cynicism that is constantly on display from Democrats on issues
Speaker 1: of war in peace, on issues of military life and death,
Speaker 1: I mean, our troops being deployed. They were so opposed
Speaker 1: to the Bush administration's wars abroad, and then they were
Speaker 1: excusing Obama's acceleration of the war and an expansion of
Speaker 1: the war in Afghanistan, a complete apologist for it, by
Speaker 1: the way, and his blind eye that he turned to
Speaker 1: everything going on in Syria. Obama administration policy in Syria
Speaker 1: was a disaster. And part of the reason it was
Speaker 1: a disaster we were led to believe that it was
Speaker 1: because Obama didn't want to didn't want to repeat the
Speaker 1: mistakes of the Bush administration. That's actually a very charitable reinterpretation,
Speaker 1: I think, rewriting of what was really going on there.
Speaker 1: The Obama administration took such a soft touch with regard
Speaker 1: to the situation in Syria. Remember they went into Libya.
Speaker 1: You know, they were going to go in there and
Speaker 1: send in We had planes bombing them. We had NATO
Speaker 1: allies supporting the anti Kadafi resistance. We topple that government.
Speaker 1: We figured, hey, why not. The reason they didn't go
Speaker 1: in Syria is, yes, it would have been more complicated
Speaker 1: mission than Libya, but also they didn't want to upset
Speaker 1: the Iranians, and the Iranians have much deeper interests in
Speaker 1: Syria than we do. That's just a fact. And we
Speaker 1: need to understand what the drawbacks are, what the downsides
Speaker 1: are to the projection of US military force into some
Speaker 1: of these areas, because when you're there, you're responsible. You know,
Speaker 1: even you know they think of it this way, with
Speaker 1: the presence in Rock, the presence in Syria and in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: You know, you can be out with your friend at
Speaker 1: a bar who is a really volatile character, and you
Speaker 1: could say, all right, I'm just gonna be there with him,
Speaker 1: but I'm not going to be This is most of
Speaker 1: the guys, oh some of the ladies. You probably have
Speaker 1: some volatile friends too that go out you got drinking with.
Speaker 1: But if you're out with that friend who you know
Speaker 1: can be a problem, sometimes you have to remember that
Speaker 1: even if you mind your own business and you don't
Speaker 1: want to get into with anybody. You might be in
Speaker 1: a position where you feel obligated to back your buddy
Speaker 1: up when he starts something. That's the problem with staying
Speaker 1: in a place like Syria, or continue to stay in
Speaker 1: a place like Afghanistan is that I don't believe that
Speaker 1: this is like Germany or like South Korea. These are
Speaker 1: not stabilized situations where we can determine we come and
Speaker 1: go as we please, and it's just the day to
Speaker 1: day safety and security of our troops is essentially assured.
Speaker 1: I think that there's a people say, buck, we have
Speaker 1: troops in South Korea because we want effectively a bulwark
Speaker 1: against North Korean aggression. Yeah, that's true, But unless North
Speaker 1: Korea wants to fight a war, they're not going to
Speaker 1: go after our troops in South Korea. The Taliban doesn't care.
Speaker 1: If they can sneak a suicide truck bomb into one
Speaker 1: of our facilities and kill two or three hundred Americans,
Speaker 1: they'll do it in the blink of an eye. They could.
Speaker 1: That would be they viewed as a huge victory. But
Speaker 1: you know, these are the discussions that you would think,
Speaker 1: and I know I'm moving around and talking about some
Speaker 1: of the different places where we have troops. But these
Speaker 1: are the discussions that you would think would be happening
Speaker 1: in this country in a way where people are really
Speaker 1: our politicians and the media are really engaged. But because
Speaker 1: it's hard for them to bash Trump for not wanting
Speaker 1: for not wanting to expand these wars or to invade
Speaker 1: more countries. Because of that, I think there's less interest. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: much of the left's posturing on foreign policy, and it's
Speaker 1: positioning on foreign policy is really just a function of
Speaker 1: what is advantageous from a domestic policy perspective. That really
Speaker 1: is the focus, that is where they want to put
Speaker 1: their energy and attention, And this is why there's such
Speaker 1: an incoherence. And that's why back to the Tulsi Gathered situation,
Speaker 1: and I just I watched that clip again last night.
Speaker 1: Here's a bunch of liberals posing as journalists asking a
Speaker 1: left wing Democrat questions that are essentially hostile because Gabbert
Speaker 1: doesn't want us to go to war with a SAD,
Speaker 1: and Democrats, after all those years where Obama didn't go
Speaker 1: to war with the SAD, seem kind of disappointed by
Speaker 1: that prospect. And that's not driven by what's happening in Syria.
Speaker 1: That's just driven by the changes here at home, you know,
Speaker 1: because Trump is opposed to war with the sad, they
Speaker 1: kind of feel like they should be for it. This
Speaker 1: is crazy stuff, but we are living in a very
Speaker 1: unusual time for American politics, So I guess I should
Speaker 1: stop saying any of the stuff is crazy because we're
Speaker 1: coming to expect it. Hey, team Buck, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. The roll call? May we be insert? I
Speaker 1: don't know why we do some weird foreign language stuff
Speaker 1: with roll call these days. I don't know. I just
Speaker 1: feel like, gotta change it up, gott to spice it up,
Speaker 1: keep the team on their toes. And I always wonder
Speaker 1: if if you can hear what I hear when I'm
Speaker 1: in the studio, Like somehow there's a dog that's barking
Speaker 1: right below me. John could does that stuff? Well? Do
Speaker 1: you guys hear the sirens sometimes? Or is it just
Speaker 1: just me? I think your mic doesn't pick it up.
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty good, Mike, Oh nice, Okay, occasionally again,
Speaker 1: I'm not using I don't know. I'm in the middle
Speaker 1: of like a Law and Order episode here because I've
Speaker 1: got a roadway that goes past me with the sirens.
Speaker 1: All right. I feel like it gives a little authenticity
Speaker 1: to things. Um, let's get into a let's get into it.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. Also, if you are
Speaker 1: on Instagram, which is increasingly the platform of choice for
Speaker 1: a lot of folks because they don't really spend as
Speaker 1: much time on Facebook, you can follow me there too,
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. One note, though, I'm seeing that there's a
Speaker 1: I get messages on Instagram. There's a lot of like
Speaker 1: bots and things that send messages on Instagram. So if
Speaker 1: you want to send me a message directly, please send
Speaker 1: it to Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. Instagram messages,
Speaker 1: there's so many, and they're from you know, Smith Lana
Speaker 1: from Moscow who wants to be my special friend, and
Speaker 1: and I'm just yeah, that's not good. So I try not,
Speaker 1: you know, don't we don't open those messages. Yes, you're
Speaker 1: a very handsome American. I want to make I want
Speaker 1: to make contact with you. Whoa hey lady, Hey svith
Speaker 1: Lana two seven nine seven five or I don't think
Speaker 1: it's really a guy named a guy named Oleg who
Speaker 1: is in a basement in Moscow, but That's why I
Speaker 1: don't open the Instagram messages, so by all means, send
Speaker 1: me Facebook messages, less Russian bots or any bots for
Speaker 1: that matter on Facebook. Tony first up here, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I was just listening to yesterday's podcast when I heard
Speaker 1: the crushing news I'm losing my broadcast heroes, first Jerry Doyle,
Speaker 1: Brief Peyton, and now the great Doc Thompson. Not to
Speaker 1: mention almost losing Jeff Fisher. You're my last hero. I know.
Speaker 1: I'm a forty eight year old Coastguard vet trying to
Speaker 1: break in this chaotic world of radio that I've dreamed
Speaker 1: up since I was a kid. I promise you this,
Speaker 1: when I get my shot, I will carry the memory
Speaker 1: of those great broadcasters on my shoulders and in my
Speaker 1: heart with every breath I take on the air. Well, Tony,
Speaker 1: my friend, First of all, I agree with you. I
Speaker 1: certainly am am still reeling from the loss of my
Speaker 1: old colleague and friend, Doc Thompson, and also my colleague
Speaker 1: and friend Breef Peyton, two people far too young and
Speaker 1: far too much ahead of them for just tragedy to
Speaker 1: strike in the way that it did. As for your
Speaker 1: aspirations and your desire to continue on the mission of
Speaker 1: some of the greats that you mentioned. My friend, Shields High,
Speaker 1: please please stay on it, stay in the fight and
Speaker 1: chase your dream man, because the more I look around,
Speaker 1: I see what folks are up to. And at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, you know, you have how you
Speaker 1: treat people and what you're doing with yourself, and that's
Speaker 1: and that's really a lot of a lot of what
Speaker 1: you got. You know, maybe you get some some good
Speaker 1: meals here and there and a good night's sleep, but
Speaker 1: other than that, how do you treat the people around you?
Speaker 1: And what do you do with yourself? I said to
Speaker 1: somebody recently that we are all just a compilation of
Speaker 1: our choices. I should probably change that. Are amended to
Speaker 1: We're a compilation of our choices as manifested in our actions. Um,
Speaker 1: that's that's what really defines who we are. So Tony,
Speaker 1: good luck to you, my friend, God's speed. Um Kayla
Speaker 1: rights hold on a second, love the show, Buck, But
Speaker 1: you are wrong. The State of Union speech was perfect,
Speaker 1: and do not discount the public's ability to ingest information.
Speaker 1: I remember every word. Also bring back deep dives in history.
Speaker 1: These are the things that make your show different from
Speaker 1: the others oss shields high k Um Well, uh kayla,
Speaker 1: as you're absolutely every bit has entitled your opinion on
Speaker 1: the State of the Union address as I am to
Speaker 1: what I said. So if you think it was perfect,
Speaker 1: well and it's perfect as to history deep dives, trust me.
Speaker 1: It's it's a love of mine. It's kind of a
Speaker 1: passion project. I know, we did shields Hie for a
Speaker 1: little bit. I want to come back and do more
Speaker 1: of them. It really just turned into an issue of
Speaker 1: you know, I've got bosses who owned to some degree
Speaker 1: my my time. I've got a few bosses and they
Speaker 1: own my time, and so that, you know, that makes
Speaker 1: it hard for me to do some projects like that
Speaker 1: that we're not We don't have a commercial sponsor for
Speaker 1: There's some very nice folks out there who offered to
Speaker 1: try and sponsor a few episodes of shield Hie just
Speaker 1: out of their own pocket. Maybe I would do a
Speaker 1: go fund me for one or something, But is that
Speaker 1: is that what it? Yeah? Go fund me, right, that's
Speaker 1: what you would use. Um, But it's it's a it's
Speaker 1: a lot of work in these days. I'm running a
Speaker 1: little ragged just trying to make sure that this show
Speaker 1: is as good as it can possibly be every night,
Speaker 1: plus the Rising Show, plus columns that I write, plus
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff. But Kay, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for writing in, and we will get to the history
Speaker 1: projects again. It's just a question of when I can
Speaker 1: carve out the time, Max writes. Pelosi said she wants
Speaker 1: zero dollars for the wall because she thinks building a
Speaker 1: wall is immoral. If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd
Speaker 1: say that I will not veto a budget with no
Speaker 1: wall funding so long as it also has no Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood funding, because I think they're immoral. Potentially that fulfills
Speaker 1: a campaign promise no matter what she decides. Ben SaaS
Speaker 1: was just complaining on Monday, we haven't really tried defunding
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood. Do you think there's any chance Trump may
Speaker 1: try this? Max, I don't think that there's much of
Speaker 1: a chance that Trump will do that specifically, but I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that means it's not a good idea. I
Speaker 1: think it is disappointing that Republicans did not try really
Speaker 1: to defund, did not defund, and they could have. They
Speaker 1: did not defund Planned Parenthood. There were Republicans who like
Speaker 1: their jobs more than they liked their principles and their mission.
Speaker 1: There's no way around that. It's just the truth. So
Speaker 1: I think we have to remember that as we look
Speaker 1: at these different different issues that come up of why
Speaker 1: didn't they do this or why didn't they do that?
Speaker 1: It's not always because they were blocked or because they
Speaker 1: didn't have the time or the resources or the bandwidth.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they just didn't want to do it. They didn't
Speaker 1: want to do it. And I think that that's certainly
Speaker 1: true about Planned parent would. I was talking to a
Speaker 1: you know what I should a producer, Mike, can we
Speaker 1: can we reach out to the team behind Unplanned the movie?
Speaker 1: I'd like to get somebody from from the movie on.
Speaker 1: I was just talking to h somebody who's involved in
Speaker 1: it today. I bumped into somebody while having coffee as
Speaker 1: one does, and he's involved with the movie. And I
Speaker 1: think it's something that we should talk about a little
Speaker 1: bit on the show here, because obviously the media just
Speaker 1: they want to bury it. I mean, they don't want
Speaker 1: anyone to know about this woman who used to be
Speaker 1: a Planned Parenthood director and then essentially went in the
Speaker 1: room and really saw what was going on and learned
Speaker 1: and now has become a warrior for life since then,
Speaker 1: they do not want people to know the story. And
Speaker 1: this movie that's just out now unplanned, So we should
Speaker 1: reach out and get somebody from that show on something
Speaker 1: that movie on my Mamen, TJ. Buck, here's a quote
Speaker 1: I read from Victor Davis Hanson that you might appreciate,
Speaker 1: albeit a slightly extreme analogy. If Trump avoids unpopular wars
Speaker 1: and tough economic times, perhaps a majority of voters will
Speaker 1: see him as political chemotherapy, occasionally nausea inducing, but still
Speaker 1: necessary and largely effective to stop a toxic and metastasizing
Speaker 1: political cancer. You know, TJ. Some of the some of
Speaker 1: the Stalwarts and Team Buck, we're trying to tell me
Speaker 1: this all along. They were saying, look, man, you've got
Speaker 1: to you've got to see Trump as a as a
Speaker 1: political political weapon against this onslaught from the left. And
Speaker 1: you know, weapons are messy. You know, artillery is a
Speaker 1: great thing, but sometimes artillery rounds land on the wrong house.
Speaker 1: That's just the nature of battle, in the nature of struggle.
Speaker 1: And Trump is not perfect. He's an imperfect vessel. I
Speaker 1: would never sit here and because I would have to
Speaker 1: tell you things that I don't believe are true. I
Speaker 1: would never sit here and say that everything that Trump
Speaker 1: says and everything he does is amazing. But what he
Speaker 1: has done so far is look, I think he's I
Speaker 1: think he's been more conservative than George W. Bush on
Speaker 1: the domestic policy. I think it's not even a hard
Speaker 1: case to make. Bush was almost an open borders guy.
Speaker 1: Bush was really pro amnesty, no problem with the the legal immigration.
Speaker 1: In fact, the whole Bush family was really open to
Speaker 1: the idea of huge guessworker programs, more and more immigration amnesty.
Speaker 1: And you can see this by the way that they
Speaker 1: dealt with a case down at the border involving two
Speaker 1: border agents Ramos and Campaillon I believe were their names,
Speaker 1: who got into a shootout with cartel drug smuggler and
Speaker 1: somehow because they didn't know, they didn't log the shootout properly,
Speaker 1: and the guy got I think he got hit in
Speaker 1: the butt with around They faced years and years in
Speaker 1: federal prison and went to prison, and finally at the
Speaker 1: end of the Bush administration, I believe it was I
Speaker 1: don't I forget which one. I think it was Ramos,
Speaker 1: but I might be forgetting. I can't remember everything off
Speaker 1: the top of my head was commuted. His sentence was commuted.
Speaker 1: But they threw border patrol the Bush, the Bush administration,
Speaker 1: George W. Bush through border patrol under the bus and
Speaker 1: the Bushes were Yeah, they're they're Connecticut plutocrats posing as
Speaker 1: you know, Texas salt of the Earth types. But they
Speaker 1: were not good on immigration, they were not good on
Speaker 1: the debt. They're not going on a lot of issues.
Speaker 1: So people that want to lecture me a, oh Trump
Speaker 1: isn't conservative, Okay, what do you define as conservative policy?
Speaker 1: Then I'm curious. But you know what, I want to
Speaker 1: continue on with roll call here because we're just I
Speaker 1: feel like we're just getting into it. So let me
Speaker 1: hit a quick pause and we will come right back.
Speaker 1: Before we get into the roll call again, I just
Speaker 1: want to note to if you have not already, please
Speaker 1: do subscribe to the Buck Sex and Show podcast. It's
Speaker 1: on iTunes on the iHeart radio app. Even if you're
Speaker 1: a live listener, if you subscribe to the podcast, it
Speaker 1: just means you'll have an opportunity to listen whatever you like.
Speaker 1: And it's also the easiest way to share this show
Speaker 1: with people so they don't say, oh, I don't have
Speaker 1: him on my station in my area to say, well,
Speaker 1: here's the podcast. All right, Cheryl, all right, it's hi. Buck.
Speaker 1: Have received this newsletter from Hillsdale. This article discusses research
Speaker 1: studies that show some very negative results of marijuana use.
Speaker 1: People have been told it's not really harmful. Common sense
Speaker 1: says that's not true. Now there's research to challenge the
Speaker 1: medical and recreation marijuana propaganda. You know, I will have
Speaker 1: to check this out, Cheryl. Now you know I'm I'm
Speaker 1: somebody who is in favor of of moderation in almost
Speaker 1: all things. Moderation is a good idea, and it is
Speaker 1: even for someone like me who has a bit of
Speaker 1: a chocolate addiction and a caffeine addiction. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are my vices. I have not smoked marijuana in oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, i'd say almost twenty years now, it's been
Speaker 1: twenty years. I haven't done any illegal drugs of any
Speaker 1: kind in almost twenty years. And yet I'm somebody who
Speaker 1: tries to live within the realities of what prohibition does
Speaker 1: in society and what legalization does. That I'll said, just
Speaker 1: because something is legal, I don't think it means that
Speaker 1: anybody suggests that it's good for you. Or even a
Speaker 1: good thing. Sometimes the cost of prohibition is worse than
Speaker 1: the downside of legalization. With marijuana, I've never I don't
Speaker 1: enjoy it. I don't understand the appeal. I've never had
Speaker 1: a medical condition that would benefit from marijuana smoking, so
Speaker 1: I can't speak to that. But I do know that alcohol,
Speaker 1: even in any excess, and the culture around alcohol is
Speaker 1: really destructive. And I even think that the professional culture
Speaker 1: for adults around alcohol, you know, everywhere you go, and
Speaker 1: I always want to drink, you know, I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: want to drink with the frequency that I'm supposed to
Speaker 1: in professional settings, and people make it think it's funny
Speaker 1: that you you know, that someone like me would have
Speaker 1: an iced tea or something out at a social event.
Speaker 1: But I gotta get up at five o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 1: I work fourteen hours a day on a lot of days,
Speaker 1: so I can't. That doesn't mean I don't like to
Speaker 1: sit back though, sometimes and have a glass of tequila
Speaker 1: or mescal or you know. So I'm not a prohibitionist,
Speaker 1: but I'm a moderation guy. With marijuana. I'm open to
Speaker 1: the argument that it's really bad for you, but I
Speaker 1: don't see the argument for let's make this illegal. So
Speaker 1: if you're trying to tell me that people should know
Speaker 1: that this is not as harmless as they're being led
Speaker 1: to believe, I'm all for that. But if we're going
Speaker 1: to start locking people up again for selling or smoking marijuana,
Speaker 1: I just I don't see how that argument can be
Speaker 1: made while alcohol is legal. I really, I really don't.
Speaker 1: Bob Right's catching off on my podcast. I live in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Trust me, this is not Maga Country. I've never seen
Speaker 1: a Maga hat in the city. I'm surrounded by progressive Democrats.
Speaker 1: I find the story highly unlikely from the Empire actor. Bob.
Speaker 1: I've been saying it all along, and it's so funny
Speaker 1: because some of the blue checks, which for those of
Speaker 1: you don't know, that's just the This is when you're
Speaker 1: verified on a social media platform, and this is now
Speaker 1: how people like me who are media personalities, we all
Speaker 1: fight with each other right online. And when I see
Speaker 1: the blue checks come after me, it means the journalists,
Speaker 1: the verified journalists, are giving me a hard time about something.
Speaker 1: Some of them gave me all this key because I said,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I just don't think that this story adds
Speaker 1: up I don't. I don't find it credible. That's different
Speaker 1: than saying it's a lie. But I don't find it credible.
Speaker 1: And now I will say, no, it's a lie. It's
Speaker 1: a lie. This guy made this up. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he made up all of it. Maybe there was
Speaker 1: some kind of a scuffle on the street with somebody,
Speaker 1: but all this maga. This Jy Smollett character, this actor
Speaker 1: in Chicago. His story doesn't make sense. And when a
Speaker 1: story doesn't make sense like this, you know, but he
Speaker 1: there's no downside they're telling us. Now. The Chicago Police
Speaker 1: Department has said if he file a false report, they'll
Speaker 1: be consequences. I don't believe that. I don't believe it.
Speaker 1: They won't want to prosecute him. And you know, I
Speaker 1: disagree with this idea that you know, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: if you lie to the FBI, libs will always say, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, you can't lie to the FBI, even
Speaker 1: though as we know, there's a lot of there's a
Speaker 1: lot of hypocrisy and who gets charged and who doesn't
Speaker 1: and under what pretenses. I mean, there's a double standard
Speaker 1: in place. But when it comes to false reports, which
Speaker 1: is just another form of lying. Liberals seem very accepting
Speaker 1: of false reports. If you say, well, you should be
Speaker 1: punished for a false report about a hate crime, about
Speaker 1: a sexual assault, you will hear liberals over and over
Speaker 1: again completely freak out about this, and they will say
Speaker 1: that it's going to get rid of people. It'll stop
Speaker 1: people from coming forward to tell their stories, they'll stop
Speaker 1: people from filing charges, all of this stuff. So I've
Speaker 1: real concerns about how this is no longer treat It's
Speaker 1: not treated as a problem. False reports are not treated
Speaker 1: as as the issue that they should be, And in
Speaker 1: the just smaller case, I think we're going to see
Speaker 1: that play out very soon. Stephen writes, Hey, Buck, just
Speaker 1: want to say thanks for your mention of Doc on
Speaker 1: your show. I generally listen to you when The Blaze
Speaker 1: does your rerun in the mornings. Back in the Blaze days,
Speaker 1: I listened to Beck, but you and Doc were the
Speaker 1: two reasons I really listened in with Jase Evern just
Speaker 1: a little bit behind you. Nowadays, you and Doc plus
Speaker 1: claven Stein and the guys over at Bill Widdow's place
Speaker 1: or my go to's for everything, All you guys mean
Speaker 1: a lot to me. I appreciate hearing your words this morning,
Speaker 1: Shield Tie Well, Steve, and you mean a lot to loss,
Speaker 1: my friend, and the people like you are our friends
Speaker 1: out there who support what we do and are a
Speaker 1: part of what we're doing. And I really last night
Speaker 1: I was just saying prayers for Doc and his family
Speaker 1: and sharing their go fund Me and trying to get
Speaker 1: them help. By the way, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: people helping, which I really appreciate. I think they raised
Speaker 1: over a one hundred thousand dollars when I check this morning,
Speaker 1: we're gonna close the show up there, my friends. More tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Shields Hie. Days away Valentine's Day, My friends, it's the
Speaker 1: super Bowl for romance. Do you want to make sure
Speaker 1: you do it the right way? Do you want to
Speaker 1: get up taken care of right now? It'll just take
Speaker 1: you a minute or two. Do it. Go to one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com. Make sure you get beautiful stuff,
Speaker 1: beautiful flowers and chocolate and gifts, all the stuff that
Speaker 1: you need right there at one hundred flowers dot com.
Speaker 1: Because we've only got a few days until Valentine's Day,
Speaker 1: you can still get it delivered on time at the
Speaker 1: place you want it to be. I've done this. I
Speaker 1: got Miss Molly getting flowers next week. I'm really excited
Speaker 1: about it. She's gonna love them, and I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: a Valentine's Day hero. You can be a Valentine's Day
Speaker 1: Hero two. Just go to one hundred flowers dot com.
Speaker 1: Order eighteen red roses for twenty nine ninety nine, or
Speaker 1: upgrade at twenty four red roses for only ten dollars
Speaker 1: more again one eight hundred flowers dot com, Click the
Speaker 1: radio icon and enter Coode Buck one eight hundred flowers
Speaker 1: dot com. Click that radio icon entercode buck. Hurry offer
Speaker 1: expires Friday